Comment thread at Crossroads, partially reproduced below.

(See my comment about recent copyrighting of Simpson's blog HERE.)


John Foskett says:
April 6, 2012 at 8:06 am

Well, I’ll give Mr. Wallace this much – he does, for better or for worse. It’s the Connies of the planet who are living in a virtual world with their own photo-shopped version of “Confederate/ Southern Heritage”.


Connie Chastain says:
April 6, 2012 at 8:59 am

Photoshopped? Funny you should bring that up, Mr. Foskett:


Brooks D. Simpson says:
April 6, 2012 at 10:48 am

And here we have another Connie Chastain lie … and it’s a big one.

Here is where you can find the image originally reproduced on this blog:

Note that it is from a post in 2004.

When Connie brought this to my attention, I looked more carefully at the image, saw that it in fact had been altered (and to my mind unfairly, with a horrendous image), and I removed it, replacing it with the original image. My apologies to all for not being more careful.

That said, Connie Chastain’s accusation now stands as a blatant lie in accusing Andy Hall or me of altering the image. Moreover, note that Connie Chastain never expressed an objection to the racist image itself.

So, in a desperate attempt to play “gotcha,” Connie Chastain has managed to expose herself as a liar who is not disturbed by racist imagery. And that’s the best face one can put on it.

Thanks, Connie, for reminding us of who you really are.


My response, not online yet. I suspect he won't post it. It has probably long since been sent to the Crossroads Cornfield.

When *I* brought it to your attention? You mean, like today, April 6? Andy Hall's comment posted March 27 brought it to your attention the day you put it online -- TEN FREAKING DAYS AGO. Why didn't you look at it more carefully and take it down then? You gonna try to tell me you didn't KNOW about it then? LOL! And the lies just keep on coming....

I made no accusation, Perfesser. I merely made a tentative assumption and asked a couple of questions about it. Hey, that's what you get for not attributing the photos you steal and put on your blog to slander people with.

After all, you stole a picture of me off my copyrighted blog and posted it here with the background photoshopped out. Why shouldn't I assume you have experience with photoshopped backgrounds? Or are you gonna tell me you found the pic of me with the red background somewhere online from 2004? LOL; it existed nowhere online until I put it on my blog April 1. So when I asked you to take it down here

you added a snarky graphic equating me with hooded KKKers. And THEN you go back and add it here:

in a post dated March 27 -- five days before I put the graphic on my blog. And you wonder why I think you ethics are slimy?

One has to wonder what search term you used to find that altered image of Miss Duty and her dress, though. I did a Google image search using the term "Confederate flag dress" and the altered image didn't show up in the first 14 pages. I searched "Confederate flag prom dress" and it didn't show up in the first 16 pages...

So now you are foisting off yet another lie that I'm not disturbed by racist imagery because I haven't objected to the image. LOL! What you mean is I haven't objected to it in a comment thread on your blog -- or any of the places you monitor looking for material you can slander Confederate heritage folks with. Hate to break it to you, perfesser, but you're not omniscient, and there's LOTS you don't know.

Actually this falls under the category of you pitching a hissy fit to try to deflect attention away from the fact that you posted a doctored image for the purpose of slandering Southern heritage advocates and left it up for ten freaking days after Andy Hall brought the faked racist nature of the photo to your attention in your blog's comment thread. Now you and Andy both are scrambling to cover your arses.

Incidently, it's a logical fallacy, perfesser, to say that not expressing disapproval equals approval. By this token, since I haven't seen you object to NAMBLA, am I to assume that you're not disturbed by pedophilia?

On Copyright Violations

The perfesser recently made a big deal about copyrighting his blog. In the very post where he announced the new policy, he posted a picture of me that he had stolen off my copyrighted blog, here:

and photoshopped it onto a red background.  As noted above, when I asked him to remove it from his "blog housekeeping" post, he replaced it with a graphic equating me with the Ku Klux Klan.

Then, in continued and further violation of my blog's copyright notice, he posted the same stolen and photoshopped image of me (that was never online anywhere until April 1)  into the March 27th Crossroads post titled, So It's Heritage, Not History ... A Candid Admission.

His continued violation of my blog's copyright policy means he has no right to complain about my copy-paste above of a comment thread at Crossroads. 

For a continued example of the perfesser's long track record of lying about me, see his truncated, slice-and-diced "interpretation" of a post I made on Facebook, here:

And read the truth, here:

And here: 

Like I said, he's a petty, vindictive little man with slimy ethics.

That's it for now. But you never know when I might have more to add.