Why the intense scorn about Stripling’s pronouncement?
Accepted archaeological procedure discouraged reporting a find until after it had completed peer review by the appropriate scholarly community. This protocol Stripling admittedly violated.
About this he offered the explanation given in the previous post. In sum, he feared losing his intellectual stake in his find. He thus felt compelled, despite protocol, to release publicly what he had discovered about his artifact’s nature.
Unfortunately, this happened in the wake of another biblical archaeological scandal, one that caused heightened sensitivity about scholarly procedures.1
Israel Antiquities Authority had prematurely publicized their analysis of a Tel Lachish pottery sherd. The news release heralded it as the first found in Israel referencing King Darius the Great of Persia 2500 years ago.2
The tomb of Darius the Great (550 B.C. to 486 B.C.) at Naqsh-e-Rustam The site lies northwest of ancient Persepolis, 30 miles (50 km) northeast of modern Shiraz, Iran.
Photo by Nursel Kaya on Pexels.com Ruins of Persepolis, a city founded by Darius the Great
Shortly afterwards, however, a researcher specializing in ancient Aramaic confessed that she had written the inscription.
While visiting the site with her students, she had demonstrated the ancient script on a pottery sherd lying about. Once finishing her lesson, she had tossed it aside, not intending any malice.3
What she had demonstrated turned out to be quite accurate–accurate enough to fool many renowned scholars.
Great embarrassment ensued within several prestigious academic communities.
Contemporaneously into that setting Stripling’s dilemma unhappily landed.4
Many scholars were outraged. Stripling publicly declared a history challenging find underpinned by photos. Not only had he not navigated peer review. He had not released his photos for academic scrutiny. Without them scholars were handcuffed in vetting the allied fantastic claims.
The next step was to compile the data–archaeological, digital, photographic, and epigraphic into a paper and then submit that to a peer review journal.
Which journal should they petition?
They chose Heritage Science. Why? They wanted one esteemed especially by the scientific community. Interpretation of this archaeological find required complex computer and tomographic analysis in addition to archaeological and epigraphic expertise. A respected scientific journal they felt most appropriate.1
Stripling’s team wrote their paper and submitted it to the journal. It in turn approached three specialist. These it perceived of appropriate backgrounds to review the paper. They assessed its credibility, identified where it needed strengthening, and determined questions that needed answering, etc.
Eventually, Stripling received the reviewers’ initial verdicts.
Two of these gave glowing approval. The other reflected considerable disdain and, in fact, vaguely suggested possible criminality.
All three, however, praised the quality of the writing and scholarship. They all had numerous questions and requests for modifications or clarifications–in total seventy-two.
Stripling and his team responded.
Afterwards, the glowing remarks from the two previously favorable reviewers continued. They highly recommended that the journal publish the edited paper.
After receiving the Stripling team’s responses, the negativity of the dissenting panel member softened markedly. Likely this resulted from legal clarifications regarding documents from relevant authorities–Palestinian and Israeli. He or she, in fact, in the end recommended the paper’s publication. All three reviewers assessed the paper as warranting further examination by the scholarly community.2
(As an aside, Heritage Science has not released, as of this writing, the names of the peer reviewers they assigned.)
The journal decided to publish the Stripling team’s article.
That publication we soon investigate thoroughly.
But first we need to put events into some perspective.
After the press conference, twelve months passed. Then on 12 May 2023, three and a half years from the tablet’s discovery, Heritage Science finally published Stripling’s article.
How was this received?
Some were elated, some disappointed, others disgusted.
In succeeding posts I scrutinize the article, its photos, and various responses.
Here though I recall the context of these days. Significant currents darkened the times from the finding of the tablet through and beyond publication.
Of these three particularly warrant recounting.
Pandemic
In December 2019, as we have seen, the lead tablet landed in Frankie Synder’s wet-sifting tray.
In that same month ominous events brewed in another part of the world.
The Museum of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) displays this December 12, 2019 log entry:
“A cluster of patients in China’s Hubei Province, in the city of Wuhan, begin to experience the symptoms of an atypical pneumonia-like illness that does not respond well to standard treatments.”
Subsequently, COVID-19 leads to a two year Stripling hiatus from work in Israel.
Local Perils
On January 24, 2023 JNS, Jewish News Syndicate, reported this protest by the Israel Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant:
“Israel will not allow Palestinians to damage a major archaeological site located deep in the biblical heartland of Samaria, one that is revered by millions of Jews and Christians as the location where Joshua built an altar.”
This statement he issued in response to a Palestinian news report about planned construction in the vicinity of the Ebal altar site.
In a letter to the Palestinian Authority Gallant further directed:
“…it has been clarified…to the Palestinian Authority that we will not allow any damage to the altar, which has been defined as an archaeological site of historic cultural and religious significance.”
Events past and present underscored the necessity of Gallant’s manifesto.These include:
In 2021 a Palestinian road crew damaged the outer “footprint” enclosing the Ebal altar.
In Nablus during the last two decades several alarming incidents transpired at the tomb alleged to be that of Joseph, son of Jacob, second in command to Egypt’s Pharaoh. This purported holy site, venerated by Jews and Christians, was defaced, fire bombed, and otherwise purposely damaged. (Note that the actual location of Joseph’s tomb near ancient Shechem is a matter of speculation rather than exact historical or archaeological evidence.)
Resultantly, heavily armed military units started escorting pilgrims to the area. This began after the Oslo Accords designated the region as “Area B”, one under the dual authority of the Palestinian civil government and the Israeli military.
From this last bullet one can readily perceive what might be the sentiments among some locals. Especially aggrieved likely would be those descending from ancestors who for generations have resided in the region.
Of what these Israeli military escorts consist I cannot relate. If, however, they resemble an American equivalent I envision vehicles armed with 50 calibers, 240 Bravos, 249 SAWS, or equivalent menacing weaponry. Infantrymen clad in full armor climbing to elevated positions with their M4’s acquitted with zeroed mechanical and electronic sights. A defensive cordon once established restricts entrance and exit of the area.
If some power not representing me executed such near my home, I can well imagine the caustic feelings that would swirl within!
On the other hand, one also can perceive the necessity of these escort measures.
The bottom line is this: Embitterment among some locals one must factor when evaluating the security of the Mt. Ebal altar.
October 7, 2023
During my life, little, if anything, equates the ghastly evil of Hamas’ cowardly massacre of innocents on this date.
Whether one labels Israel’s response “hard”, “harsh” or “brutal” is not the question. Hard, harsh and brutal can fall well within the acceptable context of the laws of war.
The real questions are whether war crimes have been perpetrated. World authorities appropriately should evaluate what lands fair and foul. Later individual soldiers, units, and leaders where appropriate should be held accountable.
Nevertheless, while there can be no excuse for violations of the law of war, one should not forget the horror which initially precipitated the resulting conflagration.
From it dominoes have since fallen, ones that have shaken much of the world.
For our purposes this we must remember: Mt. Ebal lies proximate to the eye of this tumult.
All of this having been noted, let us now bridge these troubled water.
In the next post I begin my review of the Stripling team’s Heritage Science article.
As already noted Heritage Science finally published the Stripling team’s peer reviewed article on 12 May 2023. That is twelve months after the press conference and almost three and a half years after the tablet’s discovery.
Much of the world, of course, breathlessly anticipated one feature.
Likely you also think, “Show us the photos, please!”
Before I do, however, there are four important observations to make.
Observation One
The article’s conclusion states the core of the Stripling team’s argument about the Curse Tablet. With it they poise a stake into the heart of much scholarly accepted history including that associated with the documentary hypothesis.
The other parts of the article’s body state facts and ideas considered. Only with the concluding core, however, does Stripling dig in his boots. It is there that he states what about the tablet emphatically belies the idea that Moses could not have authored the Torah.
The Stripling article, for example, credits team member Professor Gershon Galil, Director of the Institute of Biblical and Ancient History at the University of Haifa, with deciphering most of the interior tablet. His premises it fully elucidates.
Yet, note this crucial point.
The Stripling article’s conclusion leaves many, if not most, of Galil’s premises orphaned. His accounting of the number of inner tablet letters is neither adopted nor rejected. The same applies for his full chiasmus interpretation.
The article acknowledge many of Galil’s premises. It cites his increased letter count of forty declared at the press conference to forty-eight at publication. Consequently, it also acknowledges his slightly modified chiasmus interpretation.
Despite this, the article’s conclusion does not embrace these premises.
Instead, it concludes that the tablet’s inscription challenges history for greatly truncated reasons. Those reasons include these:
The tablet displays in proto-alphabetic script the word “YHW”, the name of the Hebrew God;
From this we know that a Hebrew inscribed the tablet sometime before 1250 B. C.;
Additionally, the tablet contains the word “ARWR” or “cursed”;
These tablet words recall events described in Deuteronomy and The Book of Joshua;
Resultantly, this artifact challenges long standing historical paradigm.1
The note immediately following the conclusion is telling. It addresses Galil’s allegiance to his premises. It announces that, in effect, he desires to “plant his intellectual flag” on those.2
A more conservative approach, however, Stripling’s conclusion adopted.
Following publication, Galil and Stripling amicably ended their team affiliation.
What are the consequences for our study?
For us Stripling has simplified our original question, “Is there anything to see here?”
Stripling’s team answers with a resounding, “Yes, see the two words on the inside of this artifact–the ancient Hebrew equivalents of “cursed” and “Yahweh”. They alone with the tablet’s ambiance challenge world history!”
Consequentially, that makes our photo study easier.
From Stripling’s perspective we can focus primarily on photos relevant to two words. The other words of Galil’s chiasmus while important are not crucial to Stripling’s conclusion.
Observation Two
Our purpose is not only to review the Stripling article and its photos. We seek also to study an allegedly refuting article.
That article considers closely the alleged Hebrew words for “cursed” and “Yahweh”.
Additionally, it makes relevant arguments involving two individual tablet characters and the Hebrew word for “You will die!” These I also include in our study.
Observation Three
In the proto-alphabetic era writing often traced a boustrophedon path. Then there was no standardized script order. Instead, letters tracked as oxen plow. They follow left to right, up to down, diagonally, etc. Another example may be the various paths that an inexperienced pre-teen might push a lawnmower over your yard or maybe someone much older quite inebriated.
Stripling, S., Galil, G., Kumpova, I. et al. “You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal. Herit Sci11, 105 (2023), paragraph 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9↩︎
From tomographic scans revealing an inside face of the tablet, we first assess the presence of an intimidating word. That is “ARWR” or “cursed”, one of the two words fundamental to Stripling’s conclusions.
In the Scientific Heritage article Gershon Galil identified this word six times on the inner tablet. Of these we will, for brevity, focus on only one.
The article’s Figure 7 shows Galil’s drawings of the tablet’s inner symbols. (Henceforth, click on underscored items to see referenced material.)
You see our word on the right annotated drawing. It is numbers 25 through 28.
“ARWR’s” proto-alphabetic spelling is “Aleph”, Resh”, “Wah”, and “Resh”.
“Resh” often resembles a rhombus. Sometimes, though, it has a tail making it resemble a kite.
“Waw” and “Resh” can be easily confused. But “Waw” replicates a mace, an ancient weapon consisting of a heavy object fastened to a handle used to bash an enemy’s skull, bones, and armor.
Importantly note one thing about the photos and drawings of Tables 2-9. These mirror the drawings of Figure 7. In other words, one must be viewed in a mirror to correspond with the other’s alignment. Otherwise they appear backwards.
Now see Table 10. It reveals several photos of the tablet’s “Outer B”, that is, the tablet’s bottom.
My beach towel’s Egyptian hieroglyphic immulates proto-alphabetic “Yod”.Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
Here is what they look like:
An angled arm symbolizes “Yod”. Picture it as running from above the elbow to the thumb and thence to the pointer finger. See Figure 7’s #11, at Table 5, (1 a and b).
Importantly, study, too,Table 10, photo # 3. The Stripling team argues that this depicts the bottom bulge of this “Yod”.
Do you agree?
If you do, this has major consequences–ones to which even Haughwout, the sceptic, agrees. It is this: mirror bulges on the bottom reflect something actually existing on the inner surface of the tablet. The object does not result from a photographic lighting or shading issue. It also nullifies the object resulting from a computer glitch.
That finishes my review of the two words which Stripling declares compel his conclusions–“ARWR” and “YHW.”
What did I tell you? That was not hard.
However, again, read these sections a couple of times. Let the photos really sink in.
With the following post I complete an initial dive into the tablet’s photos. There I look at a word and two other letters relevant to Haughwout’s arguments.
Later, however, l tread deeper into the words and symbols mentioned above as I evaluate Haughwout’s analysis.
I now aim at capturing relevant arguments of the numerous critics of Stripling’s article.
Yet, I discuss the work of only one, Mark S. Haughwout, a respected Hebrew scholar and instructor at the Indian Bible College, Flagstaff, Arizona.
There are a couple of reasons for this.
For one he does an admirable job of not only giving his thoughts but of summarizing the main views of other prominent voices.
The second reason is that his publisher, Heritage Science, the same publisher as Stripling’s article, is free and easily accessible online.
This of course makes a lay person’s review of his work feasible.
Before considering the body of Haughwout’s article, let us spend some time with his title–“Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet.”
A key word is “refutation”.
Merriam-Webster defines this as “the act or process of refuting”.
For the root word, “refute”, it gives these alternative definitions:
: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
: to deny the truth or accuracy of
The meaning of each differ markedly.
Which did Haughwout intend?
Does Haughwout prove Stripling’s claims false or does he simply deny their truth?
To underscore the vast difference in these ideas consider Matthew 9:5 NIV.
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?
Matthew 9:5 NIV
Of course, the answer is the former.
Similarly, simply denying the truth of Stripling’s claims is one thing. Actually proving that they are wrong is another.
So which is it? How can we know?
By happenstance, Haughwout answers himself. His conclusion states: “The only substantiated claim that Stripling et al. can make at this time is that they have found a very old, small piece of folded lead on Mt. Ebal using wet sifting.”
By using the word “refutation” in his title Haughwout thus declares that he has disproved Stripling’s claims, not that he merely disputes them.
We thus perceive that Haughwout’s and Stripllng’s ideas are decidedly in opposition.
One alleges that the Ebal tablet depicts something profoundly important.
The other claims to have refuted, i. e. disproved, those contentions. Essentially he declares, “Currently this tablet presents nothing of consequence.”
One says, “Take notice world! This artifact likely challenges scholarly history.”
The other declares that he has shown otherwise. Thus scholarly communities and serious journalistic ones should largely ignore the claims about this artifact.
Esteemed professionals back each. A respected scientific journal published both. Peer reviewers vetted both.
How do we resolve this tension?
Whose arguments should carry the day?
For assistance I turn to an American court procedure.
The last post sets up our story’s tension. Stripling claims that his artifact challenges scholarly world history. Haughwout counters that he has disproved such.
How do we resolve this? I suggested turning to an instrument of the American courts.
That instrument is summary judgment. Via it courts adjudicate civil cases absent a trial.
The procedure aids in balancing justice and fair play and the need for judicial economy.
Here I use it for comparison and contrast.
How does summary judgment work? Imagine yourself as the plaintiff seeking redress for a perceived wrong. At some point in pre-trial proceedings the opposing party files a motion for summary judgment. Both parties brief their respective positions. Afterward, the court issues its decision.
If the court agrees with the opposition and grants summary judgment in full against you, you lose, end stop! Barring an appeal–a costly, time consuming, and dicy affair, your case is caput. In effect, it has been deemed unworthy of further consideration. You get no opportunity for a trial.
Comparable Consequences
With this I draw a parallel with Haughwout’s “refutation”. By analogy he claims an iron clad case for in effect scholarly and journalistic summary judgment.
Henceforth, Stripling’s positions, Haughwout suggests, qualify in effect only for grocery aisle tabloid offerings of the latest Big Foot and Freddie Mercury sightings.
With Haughwout a sizable contingent of authors and professional commentators seem to agree.
This a quick online search confirms. Google “Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet”. There you soon encounter offerings such as these:
“New Studies Debunk Controversial Biblical ‘Curse Tablet’ from Mt. Ebal”;1
“New academic articles heap fresh doubt on Mount Ebal ‘curse tablet’ interpretation;”2
“Academic article on controversial 3,200 year-old ‘curse tablet fails to sway experts;”3
“Hook, Line, and Sinker: Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet Debunked?;”4
“Don’t Be Fooled by the Mount Ebal Curse Tablet.” 5
“The Mt. Ebal “inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp.”6
Delve deeper into these and you encounter statements from scholarly professionals like these:
“This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” So advises Prof. Christopher Rollston, an expert in Northwest Semitic languages and the chair of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at George Washington University7;
“The images made it clear that there are no discernible letters on this piece of crumpled lead,” said Rollston. “And again, the authors’ drawing of the letters bears no real similarity to what is present in the images;”8
“One big nothingburger”, says Dr. Robert Cargill, as cited previously, a Bible scholar and professor at the University of Iowa.9
Articles and opinions pro and con are, of course, appropriate. The scholarly process thrives on such.
The scholarly world, however, should also honor justice and fair play.
The question is whether such really operates here.
Not only has Haughwout figuratively filed a motion for summary judgment in the court of scholarly and public opinion against Stripling’s claims.
Apparently too that court has in large part granted the motion. In other words, among much of the scholarly and journalistic community the Stripling claims are considered caput.
Real consequences ensue from this figurative adjudication.
This includes loss of possible funding. Maybe it quells a future academic / scientific endeavor by Stripling. For example, it could entail the loss of permit requests for further Mt. Ebal excavations.
Questions arise:
Is this figurative adjudication just?
Should Haughwout’s claim meet some minimal standard?
Is not too much at stake to allow otherwise?
In sum, how do we arrive at an appropriate fair answer to all of these?”
Contrasting summary judgment and scholarly “refutation” suggests one.
Melanie Lidman, Academic article on controversial 3,200 -year old ‘curse tablet’ fails to sway experts, The Times of Israel, 14 May 2023, paragraph 18, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ academic-article-on-controversial-3200-year-old-curse-tablet-fails-to-sway-experts/, (7 October 2024). ↩︎
In our last post we observed similarities between Haughwout’s “Refutation” and summary judgment.
Today we explore an important contrast.
Resultantly, we answer a question previously pondered: How do we determine if Haughwout’s declaration is just?
The contrast is this: an authoritative guideline directs a court’s decision on summary judgment. On the other hand, no guide exists for evaluating Haughwout’s “refutation” claim.
For a U. S. Federal District Court that authoritarian guide is Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In part it reads:
“…The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.”
One is that the U. S. Supreme Court, the authority behind Rule 56, recognizes summary judgment as a severe pronouncement requiring a standard.
Second, before issuing such, a lower federal court must record its compliance with Rule 56’s specific elements of justice and fair play.
What does this suggest for our situation?
It is that we should do likewise.
We should adopt a standard for “refutation” that elicits some sense of justice and fair play and apply it in writing.
Our standard, of course, will lack the authority of the U. S. Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, there is value in stating some standard. Others can then understand how we arrived at our decision. From thence they will be better able to direct their criticism or approval.
In the last post I concluded that Haughwout’s scholarly refutation should satisfy a standard. Such I discerned might resemble Federal Code of Civil Procedure Article 56.
Here I propose such a standard clothed in a hypothetical.
Why the dressing?
This supplies context.
Rule 56 has hefty substance behind it, the United States’ highest court and an abundance of case law.
My standard has none, other than an appeal to fair play and justice.
The hypothetical supplies at least imaginary substance and authority which makes the standard easier to conceive.
My proposed rule and its hypothetical context is as follows:
The world’s first mega trillionaire founded the Sovereign Isles of Scholarandria. At first, he bought the main isle. Later, he acquired a score of surrounding ones.
The isles he populated with thinkers and tinkerers of the highest order. Monthly stipends with accommodations for families he provided.
In time, he established a renowned university.
The isles prospered growing in wealth and population.
Eventually, they achieved nationhood.
That brings us to the heart of this tale.
Journals at Scholarandrian University have published two competing peer review articles. These discuss a tablet found on a Samaritan mountain. Quite a stir these instigate among the Isle’s archaeological, epigraphical, historical, and religious communities..
The first article by Dr. S. Ling makes fantastic claims about this artifact.
The second by M. S. Wout alleges to have refuted, i. e. disproved those claims.
Several influential Scholarandian citizens believe Dr. Ling’s position worthy of regard, even action.
A vocal delegation of citizenry, however, especially from the archaeological, religious, and epigraphic communities, vehemently denounce Ling’s claims as “silly”, “a nothingburger”, “a classic case of pareidolia.”
Most of each camp, nevertheless, dismiss the ruckus as simply normal academia at work.
That was until a recent event unfolded in the Isles’ news media.
An extremely rich governor of one of Scholarandria’s southern most isles approached the Prime Minister with this proposition:
“I will fund an archaeological expedition to the Samaritan mountain.
There I aim to complete excavation of its controversial archaeological site. I ensure employment of the brightest minds in all fields necessary for a successful expedition. At their disposal will be the latest and finest scientific tools and processes.”
He asked the PM only this:
“Use your clout with the United Nations to achieve these two concessions:
an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to allow this excavation; and
a contingent of armed U. N. peace keepers to protect the archaeological work.”
Subsequently, the nightly news aired word of the PM / Governor meeting.
Resultantly, the previous ruckus intensified exponentially.
One side emphasized that an excavation risks the tenuous peace of a war torn region.
Acknowledging such, others nevertheless stressed the necessity of immediate excavation to protect historically precious artifacts–ones that potentially clarify how mankind’s distant past clarifies the present and future.
Others declare that the evidence supporting Dr. Ling’s claims fails to meet the simplest tests of credibility.
Alarmed about political ramifications, the PM seeks the advice of the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship (SCOS).
Subsequently, that Commission issued this press release:
“The Scholarandrian Commission on Scholarship (SCOS) finds the consternation brewing over the Samaritan Mountain issue refreshing. Why? This tumult reflects Scholarandrians’ active engagement in matters of intellectual concern.
Another aspect of this tumult we also find gratifying. We note that our SCOS Code contains longstanding provisions that address a core issue of this controversy.
The parties involved we thus encourage to avail the provisions found in SCOS Code Provision 56.”
The press release continued by highlighting pertinent sections of that provision:
Prov. 56
“Prologue: Many times in the past a university peer review journal has published an academic paper. Then later it or another publishes an article allegedly refuting, i. e.. debunking, the previous article. In other words, the succeeding article’s language manifests a conscious disproval rather than a denial of the original paper’s accuracy.
For these situations the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship implements this provision:
Be it known that the Commission finds that:
When one peer review article of this Isle alleges to debunk another previously issued article, significant negative consequences can adhere for the author of the alleged debunked article. That being so we provide the following optional remedy:
The original article’s author can file with the Commission a formal challenge to debate the merits of the disproval.
The cost of this will be three Scholarandrian crypto coins (about $100,000.00)
This challenge the original journal and the debunking one must publish in their next edition.
From the date of that publication the author of the “debunking” article shall have sixty days to respond.
To do so they must:
Deposit three Scholarandrian crypto coins with the Commission in order to “Call” the disproval challenge; or
Absent issuing the “Call”, allow the 60 days to elapse. This will trigger his/ her article’s publisher printing a retraction, one that must effectively convert the article from a “disproval” to “a challenge of accuracy.”
Note that owing to the largesse of the Governor, Dr. Ling almost immediately posts his three coins.
Mr. Wout timely follows suit.
The news release continued:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
On challenge and acceptance being issued the Commission will appoint an independent arbiter to resolve the conflict.
Guess who they appoint? That is right! It is me!
As such, I have already overseen building the record, briefing, etc. as Prov. 56 requires.
That material the journal articles here and here encapsulate.
Additionally, Prov. 56 mandates:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
The arbiter’s written decision must:
Include a list of the matter’s material facts, that is, controverted facts that are indispensable to the disproving article’s claims; and
Grant the “disproval” if a reasonable persons could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s); and
Deny the “disproval”, if otherwise.
SCOS Code Prov. 56 concludes:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
The party to whom the arbiter renders a favorable decision shall receive four Scholarandian crypto coins, the Commission one, and the arbiter one.
I wish!
Real World Application
We return now from my fantasy island.
Nevertheless, I endorse the Scholarandrian Code’s wisdom. It approximates the summary justice article of U. S. Code of Civil Procedure Article 56. It doing so it provides an objective measure for balancing academic economy with fair play.
Thus, I intend to follow it in dealing with our real world Stripling v. Haughwout.
captivatingtwists.com 