Rev. Tim Jensen - Eclectic Cleric Or Klepto Cleric? U*Us Decide. . .

Some weeks ago I said the following of the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen aka The Eclectic Cleric -

"Some people just don’t know when to quit when they are already miles behind. . ."

This observation was made in reference to Rev. Tim Jensen's questionable, and I believe rather foolish, attempt to rationalize "famous U*U" Thomas Jefferson's fairly obvious racism in a comment that he submitted to a post titled 'How Does one Judge' on U*U seminarian Kim Hampton's 'East of Midnight' blog after having previously put his foot in it by asserting that, “Calling Jefferson (or for that matter, Lincoln) racist because their expressed attitudes about race don’t match up to contemporary understandings is simply wrong-headed.”

It looks like Rev. Tim Jensen has only proven my point in the post titled 'Is It a Phoenix or an "Obama?"' in which he gives me a public, and quite undeserved, "dressing down" for privately suggesting to him in a comment submitted to his 'Can You Name This Creature' blog post on his "moderated" aka censored The Eclectic Cleric blog that he may have failed to give credit where credit is due, and somewhat waggishly suggesting in a follow-up comment submitted to his 'What Have You Done in your Life?' post that he might want to add -

Plagiarized the dreaded Emerson Avenger

to the list of things that he has done in his life.

Herewith is my point-by-point re*butt*al of the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen's rather foolish unjustified "dressing down" of yours truly -

:I've never met Robin E*****, the so-called self-titled (not to mention self-appointed) "Emerson Avenger," and frankly I hope never to have the pleasure.

Don't count on that Rev. Jensen. We may meet in person yet. . . For the record I am not "self-titled" nor "self-appointed" as "The Emerson Avenger". The Emerson Avenger was nothing more than the title that I gave to this blog until "self-titled" U*U blogger "Cranky Cindy" decided in her dubious wisdom to appoint me as a "Transcendentalist Super Hero". I decided that it might be fun to run with that U*U "title" so "The Emerson Avenger" became what some U*U bloggers like call a "persona". So you are not off to a very good start Rev. Jensen, or perhaps I should say the so-called self-titled (not to mention self-appointed) Eclectic Cleric. . . since you have not even managed to get your facts straight in your opening salvo.

:I know him by reputation, of course, as I suspect so many other bloggers do here in the UU blogosphere, but since I generally find his posts kind of abrasive and unpleasant, mostly I just try to ignore him in the hope that our paths through cyberspace will cross as little as possible.

Which is all the more reason why you might have done well to quit when you were already miles behind in the matter of using my ideas without giving credit (aka "a little honest attribution") where credit is due. . . I suspect however that it was your knowing me by big b-a-a-a-d U*U reputation only that caused you to take my original, and fairly unique, ideas without crediting me for them. Right Tim?

:Yet lately for some reason he has chosen to take a shine to me again, this time even going so far as accusing me of plagiarism because he apparently ALSO saw the image of the Demographic Map of the United States of America plotting the outcome of the last election in shades of Blue and Red based on the percentage of the popular vote, and "normalized" geographically for population density I wrote about in a previous post, and it also reminded him of a Phoenix.

In saying "take a shine to me again" I can reasonably presume that you are referring to the fact that I fairly recently shone a light on your questionable, and I believe rather shameful, rationalization of "famous U*U" Thomas Jefferson's racism on Kim Hampton's 'The East of Midnight' blog. I also have reasonable grounds to believe that you know perfectly well that I ALSO saw an image resembling some depictions of the mythical phoenix in the Rorschach inkblot test cum demographic map of the 2008 US election results and posted a comment about that to Rev. Christine Robinson's iminister blog post titled 'Purple America' more than two weeks *before* you posted about the same *two* concepts on your The Eclectic Cleric blog. Yes, it is within possibility that you *also* saw this "phoenix" and *also* compared the demographic map to a Rorschach inkblot test completely independently of seeing my comment on Rev. Robinson's blog and following the link to my original post about it on my StumbleUpon blog but, all things considered. . . I consider this scenario to be rather unlikely Rev. Jensen, or perhaps I should say 'The Klepto Cleric'.

:But before we go too far together down THAT road Brother E******, let me offer you a basic tutorial in communications law for working writers.

Oops! Too late Brother K*****. Let me offer you a basic tutorial in why I have "reasonable grounds" to believe that you used my *two* fairly unique and fairly original ideas (i.e. that the said demographic map of 2008 U.S. elections was a kind of Rorschach Inkblot Test and that it resembled some of the classic images of the mythical phoenix bird rising from its ashes) without giving credit where credit was due.

1. The U*U blogosphere is a fairly tiny online community and you are a fairly active member of it so the probability that you did not see my comment on Rev. Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post is quite low.

2. Your blog post titled 'Can You Name This Creature?' was posted to your 'The Eclectic Cleric' blog on Thursday, November 27, 2008. There is hard evidence in the form of comments that you have posted to the iminister blog both before and after that date that prove that you do read Rev. Robinson's iminister blog. Who knows? Maybe you are even subscribed to it with an RSS feed. . . I would say chances are pretty good that U*U clergy bloggers not only quite religiously read each other's blogs but subscribe to each other's blogs via RSS feeds wouldn't you Rev. Jensen?

3. The rather small 200px × 135px JPEG image of the electoral map "phoenix" on your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post is *exactly* the same size as the rather small 200px × 135px thumbnail JPEG image that was posted on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post. I dare say that I have "reasonable grounds" to believe that the rather small image that you used to illustrate your blog post was most likely copied and pasted from Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post. Care to publicly deny that very reasonable suggestion, and then tell everyone reading this blog post exactly where *else* on the internet you ALSO found YOUR 200px × 135px JPEG image of the population density electoral map "phoenix" Rev. Jensen or should I say "The Klepto Cleric"?

:Plagiarism is essentially defined as "the purloining of literary work." [Gotta LOVE THAT definition! -- it pretty much just says it all...]

You wish ever so Reverend Jensen. . . I was being my usual waggish self when I suggested that you might want to add "Plagiarized the dreaded Emerson Avenger" to the list of things that you have done in your life. In other words I was using the term "plagiarized" loosely. Artistic license and all that Brother K*****. There was a clue to that in my throwing the word "dreaded" in there. But you know what Brother K*****? Other sources, such as Wikipedia and even some half-decent English dictionaries, actually define the words plagiarize and plagiarism in a way that fits what you did to a tee.

Try on -

"Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

Courtesy of Wikipedia

or

1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).

v. intr. To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

for *size* Rev. Jensen or perhaps I should say 'The Plagiarizing Cleric'*

:Simply having a similar idea based on a similar response to a shared source of inspiration is in no way, shape or form ANYTHING resembling actual plagiarism;

Agreed *Klepto Cleric* but that is not exactly what happened in this particular case is it?

FYI When I first saw the bird-like form in the sun's corona in the excellent photograph of the July 1991 total solar eclipse taken by French astronomer Serge Koutchmy and subsequently published in the May 1992 issue of National Geographic magazine I immediately and intuitively understood that it was most probably the original source of inspiration for the mythical phoenix bird. To the best of my knowledge at the time I was the only modern person who made this connection. Some years later, in the course of my research into how this total solar eclipse "Sun Bird" inspired the phoenix myth and a whole flock of other mythical birds of the sun, I discovered that another fellow by the name of Elmer G. Suhr had come to the same conclusion decades earlier and had said as much in his book 'The Mask, The Unicorn, And The Messiah.' By that time I had already gone well beyond his proposal that lacked much evidence backing it up but I gave him credit where credit was due for having a similar idea based on a similar response to a shared source of inspiration. . . Quite regrettably there is strong evidence that your only "shared source of inspiration" for the 2008 electoral map cum Rorschach Inkblot Test cum Phoenix rising from its ashes was reading the comments that I posted to Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post. N'est-ce pas Rev. Jensen?

:it is simply a demonstration that not only do great minds think alike, but sometimes even great minds and not-so-great minds can have similar thoughts...

Agreed. I like to think that Elmer G. Suhr was something of a great mind. You on the other hand are definitely coming across as a not-so-great mind in this matter, and I am being remarkably civil in putting it that way Brother K*****. . .

:the difference being that a Truly Great Mind recognizes that there is simply "something in the air," while the not-so-great mind foolishly (and some might say narcissistically) mistakes the obvious for their own unique and original thought.

Ya "something in the air" ever so Reverend Jensen. Like the "air" of "cyberspace" here and here. . . While the not-so-great mind foolishly (and some might say narcissistically) pretends that he did not plagiarize my fairly unique and fairly original words and ideas when plenty of circumstantial evidence, and even some hard evidence. . . says that you did exactly that.

:But to bring this back to the topic at hand, writers cannot copyright "ideas" --

I would say that we are very much "on topic" Rev. Jensen aka The Plagiarizing Cleric. Please note that I have not actually accused you of copyright infringement or even suggested that you have infringed on my copyright. Prior to this blog post I only quite politely suggested that you might want to provide what *you* call "a little honest attribution" of my original and unique words and ideas that you lifted from Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post without providing the slightest credit where credit was due. In fact the exact words of the comment that I submitted to your 'Can You Name This Creature' blog post were -

I don't suppose you would care to give some credit where credit is due Rev. Jensen?

But you quite evidently were not honest enough to respond positively to that polite suggestion aka request were you Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen? No, far from it. . . N'est-ce pas Klepto Cleric?

:they may only copyright a unique and original expression of an idea -- in other words, actual and specific language and phrasing which embody and express a unique perspective of a shared (or private) inspiration, which in turn could then be plagiarized by someone else who saw that unique expression, "purloined" (i.e. stole or copied) it, and then attempted to pass it off (obviously without attribution) as their own work.

As I said Brother K*****, to date, indeed right up go this very minute, I have not accused you of copyright infringement. But you know what ever so Reverend Tim Jensen? I expect that most *honest* people (i.e. those people who I sometimes refer to as "people of intelligence and conscience") reading this blog post may come to the conclusion that my referring to this demographic electoral map as "The United States Of America as Rorschach Ink Blot Test. . ." and writing, "Kind of looks like the classic image of a Phoenix rising from its ashes to me. . ." on my StumbleUpon blog and then pretty much repeating those words on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post by saying, "I kind of like how the lower electoral map cum Rorschach Ink Blot Test looks a bit like the classic image of a phoenix rising from the ashes," are in fact original expressions of two fairly unique ideas about that electoral map. . . Let's compare the actual and specific language and phrasing which embody and express *my* original and quite unique perspective on that electoral map with what you later said about it after seeing my words on Rev. Robinson's blog and, most likely, on my StumbleUpon blog post which was linked to from it as well. Right Rev. Jensen?

Robin Edgar - Kind of looks like the classic image of a Phoenix rising from its ashes to me. . .

Rev. Tim Jensen - It looks almost like a Phoenix, doesn't it? - rising from the ashes of yadda, yadda, yadda. . .

Robin Edgar - The United States Of America as Rorschach Ink Blot Test. . .

Rev. Tim Jensen - It is a *cultural Rorschach* of the Spirit of the Age, yadda, yadda, yadda. . .

Both of these original and quite unique ideas were synthesized in my comment on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post -

I kind of like how the lower electoral map cum Rorschach Ink Blot Test looks a bit like the classic image of a phoenix rising from the ashes.

:An even more basic point is that in almost ALL cases an actual plagiarist has to have actually SEEN the original work in order to "steal" it. You can't really copy something you've never even read.

Agreed Rev. Jensen. Quite regrettably I have abundant circumstantial evidence and at least one piece of "incriminating" hard evidence that gives me plenty of "reasonable grounds" to believe that you are an actual plagiarist who actually has SEEN the original work and did "steal" it. It is remarkably disingenuous of you to proclaim, "You can't really copy something you've never even read," when there is very good reason for me and other people to believe that you did in fact read what I posted to Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post, if not my original StumbleUpon blog post ALSO. . .

:As both an academic and a clergyman I tend to take allegations of plagiarism fairly seriously, since in many ways it strikes at the core of everything I believe about integrity and creativity and their importance to the human soul.

Ya right. . . Then you would have been very well advised to take my waggish suggestion that you plagiarized my original and unique ideas fairly seriously and not made a complete fool out of yourself by giving me a thoroughly undeserved "dressing down" on your blog knowing full well that besides being an academic and a clergyman you are ALSO a plagiarist Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen aka The Klepto Cleric. If you had an ounce of personal integrity in this matter you would have provided the "honest attribution" that I politely suggested/requested about a week ago and you certainly would not have soiled your U*U soul by pretending not to be a plagiarist when the evidence says that you are one.

:On the other hand, I also tend to take a fairly broad and "liberal" view of "fair use;"

No kidding. . . You were indeed fairly broad (as in long-winded) and "liberal" (as in "free with the truth") in your not so "fair use" of my original and comparatively unique ideas weren't you Brother K*****? For the record your plagiarism of my original and unique ideas does not meet the legal definition of "fair use". ALSO, I could be mistaken, but I do believe that one of the requirements of bona fide "fair use" is that the original source of the quoted or otherwise reproduced material should be acknowledged. You did nothing of the sort, even after being politely requested to do so. . .

:we are, after all, called upon to Proclaim the Good News, not to copyright it.

You can Proclaim *your* Good News, assuming you actually have any. . . all you want to Rev. Jensen but when you purloin my Good News, or even not so Good News, you are engaging in plagiarism.

:Yet to palm off someone's original work as your own, when tools like the internet make it so easy these days to find and attribute almost anything, is truly shameful.

Indeed it is Rev. Jensen. Your palming off my original work as your own, when tools like the internet make it so easy these days to find and attribute almost anything, is truly shameful. In fact, I think that it is even more truly shameful for you to foolishly "protest too much" and insinuate that I am narcissistic when I catch you "red handed", and now no doubt "purple faced", shamelessly palming off my original words and ideas as your own. You really should be more than a little bit ashamed of yourself Klepto Cleric but, knowing what I know about the stunning hubris of the U*Us, you probably have little or no shame. Indeed one of the very reasons that I have decided in my wisdom not to display a picket sign saying -

A "CHURCH" THAT HAS NO SHAME

in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal aka The Church of the Tarnished Image is because I fear that stunningly shameless Montreal Unitarian U*Us would take that picket sign slogan as a compliment. . .

:But if you look back at what I've actually written, you'll notice right away that I've done nothing of the sort.

Wrong. Dead wrong Rev. Jensen. As I have *demonstrated* in this blog post I have repeatedly looked back at what you have actually written, or otherwise posted to your 'Can You Name This Creature' blog post, and have thus determined beyond any "reasonable doubt" that you have plagiarized my original and unique (until you purloined them that is. . .) words and ideas.

:Quickly now - if you look at MY original post, you'll notice that not only do I compare this image to a Phoenix, I also compare it to the Holy Spirit (in the form of a Dove, as in Luke's Gospel), and make several other references to other aspects of our shared cultural mythology, before finally getting around to making the one statement that might indeed be potentially copyrightable, and name this bird a "Barack."

Woo hoo! So you expanded a little bit on the original and unique ideas that you plagiarized from me. Isn't that what many plagiarists do, if only to try to hide the fact that they are engaging in plagiarism, Rev. Jensen? Do have fun trying to copyright the first name of President elect Barack Obama Klepto Cleric. It might interest you and other U*Us to know that way back in 1992 I ALSO compared the pure white "Sun Bird" that is manifested within the sun's corona during some total solar eclipses to the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove *after* first intuitively recognizing it to be the original source of inspiration for the phoenix myth. It is entirely possible that the original concept of the Holy Spirit being represented as a dove is linked to the total solar eclipse "Sun Bird" that ALSO inspired the mythical phoenix bird and a whole flock of other mythical birds of the sun.

:Again, not a particularly obscure idea; it could have occurred to anyone. But it just so happened to occur to me -- and it is unique, and it is original, and as far as I'm concerned, folks can copy it as much as they like (although a little honest attribution is always welcome....)

Isn't that so deliciously ironic ever so Reverend Jensen? All that I asked from you about a week ago now was a little honest attribution for the definitely original and really quite unique ideas that I had expressed on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post, and previously on my StumbleUpon blog, but you not only lack the honesty and personal integrity to give credit where credit was, and still is. . . due but ALSO have the unmitigated gall to try to pretend that you did not plagiarize me and that I falsely, "foolishly", and even "narcissistically" accused you of plagiarism. I am very confident that after reading this blog post, and weighing the evidence it contains, most people of intelligence and conscience will agree that if anyone has "foolishly" and even "narcissistically" made false accusations in this matter it is you.

And so it goes. . . **



* But by no means the only U*U minister who is guilty of plagiarism or otherwise purloining another person's words or ideas without giving credit where credit is due aka "honest attribution".

** Courtesy of famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr.