[ExI] Objective standards?

[Mike Dougherty]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2558 BE, at 6:12 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:31 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> We already have excellent objective standards in literature: sales receipts.
>>
>> I would not consider sales receipts to be literature... though I guess
>> your accountant can tell quite a story when all those moments are
>> reviewed for a year. :)
>
> I didn't read that as Spike calling sales receipts literature, but as him saying they indicated a piece of literature's quality. Ditto for other arts. I'm not saying I agree, but were it true than Shakespeare definitely sells. And so does Beethoven. (Not sure what William has against either since both are far more popular outside the cultural elites and professorial class than, say, Brecht (in drama) and Schoenberg (in music), though those two are not lacking in the sales department.)

haha, yeah... you read it correctly.  I did a double-take and wanted
to share the idea of sales receipt as a tiny bit of 'literature.'
Just last night I accepted a receipt at point of sale (cash) and put
it directly into the trash.  I felt bad for the senseless waste that
transaction represents.  I knew, however, that the protocol cannot be
challenged ad-hoc: it must be a cultural change to stop generating
those useless scraps of paper.