My journalism professors used to rant on and on about not using shopworn, hackneyed phrases, and I’ve gotten away from them for over 30 years now (the phrases and the professors), but I just don’t know any other way to explain the latest rash of Internet feed back I received from a story. I wrote a story recently (Superweeds Put USDA On Hot Seat) about testimony given to a U.S. House Sub-Committee by farmers and university specialists related to Super Weeds spefically and in general other gene transfer technology that some contend has done more harm to farmers and the environment than good. I thought it was (and is) important that farmers in the Southeast know what folks are saying to Congress on their behalf. Shortly after the article came out on our online issue, I received two separate e-mails—one accusing me of being a lackey of Monsanto and other high tech corporate giants. The second accused me of being anti-technology and intent on destroying the technological revolution gene splicing has brought to farming and to setting agriculture back 25 years. I’m not real smart, but I don’t think I could be both. So, here goes the adage---please don’t read any further Professors Burnett and Logue: You can’t have it both ways. I hope you will read the article and let me know what you think.