Yes, I know I'm picking on poor Denyse (and we're not even close to done), but it's worth pointing out the subtle but sleazy misrepresentation you can find in Denyse's articles if you understand what to look for.
Consider this blog post, in which Denyse uncritically reproduces the following whiny defense of one Guillermo Gonzalez:
Gonzalez said he never taught intelligent design (ID) in his classes. "The recent controversy surrounding me is strictly about the research I have done on ID," he said.
Um ... no, it's not.
As I pointed out back here, Iowa State's rationale for denying Gonzalez tenure is that he was an eminently unremarkable researcher that failed to bring in anything even remotely resembling adequate grant money. And here's the important point.
It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with ISU's position. You can defend their stance, or you can criticize it, but you can't possibly deny that their position is part of the debate. Gonzalez, however, denies any such thing when he claims that his denial was "strictly about the research I have done on ID." As you can see, that's a blatant lie, but it's one that Denyse reproduces uncritically, making her part of the same lie.
It's one thing to debate whether ISU had a case for its denial, and people are welcome to argue that from both sides. But it's quite another to deny the existence of that issue at all. None of this should surprise anyone, though -- it's just Denyse being Denyse and creating her own reality. Again.