Paul Revere did not get

anonymous phone tree messages communicating incorrect,

sensational and misleading information. As Paul Revere

rode through the streets announcing his warning, the

citizens could identify him. Historical records show

Revere to have been correct, as the British did indeed

come.

History, also, in the form

of the state Board of Ethics review, shows Mr. Avrit was

not correct in the manner in which he chose to

communicate his views.

I agree with Mr. Paquin's

assertion that it is not wrong to encourage people to

vote. There are reasonable limits to free speech to

protect the public. One can't yell out a false fire alarm

in a full theatre.

The rule in this

circumstance requires, as a condition of free speech,

that the originator of the information, having paid a

business which autodials and relays a taped message, must

identify themselves. Reasonable, yes; also it would not

have cost the originator of the message anymore to do

what was required.

Mr. Avrit was and is

entitled to express his views. It would be nice if they

were true and accurate, but regardless they are his

opionions.

Was this, in Mr Paquin's

words, "a fateful decision"? Yes, Mr. Avrit

made his decision and fate judges the consequences. Was

it pariotism? Come on! I choose not to consider

situational ethics as being patriotic.

Cary Rogers

Peachtree City