Deceit by innuendo and implication
UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE
From "History vs Heritage," a subsequent entry posted to the Prevaricatin' Professor's blog, comes this falsehood:
"We’ve recently seen someone who is an avowed defender of Confederate heritage declare that she has no interest in historical accuracy (and that claim extends beyond the image that has prompted some discussion on this blog)."Ah, no. Professor, when I said I don't care if it's historically accurate, "it's" referred to the Confederate flag in the Duillo print. Clearly. Anybody who understands pronouns -- and a professor surely ought to -- understands that.
So your statement here is not true -- unless you mean it "extends beyond" in your own mind. In that case, I would agree that it is your claim that I have no interest in historical accuracy (not my declaration) that extends beyond the image -- and into untruth.
You have a history of making claims that extend beyond truth, far into into the murky regions of falsehood.
But hey -- it's your bloggy, you can lie if you want to.... (with apologies to Leslie Gore).
I will probably have to visit the subject of "historical accuracy"again some time. But that's it for this go-round.