michael said:
>   Or bowerbird, who at least argues both sides. . . .

actually, michael, when it comes to _formats_,
i've been arguing on _your_ side, exclusively,
for many years now.

indeed, my main point in regard to _formats_
is that you should actually follow the rules for
your format, all of your rules, all of the time,
in all of your books, so i guess i could argue
that i support your format more than you do.
certainly more than your whitewashers do...


>   when even the plainest of plain text eBooks
>   is created, 99% of the work of re-creating it
>   into another format is already done, all YOU
>   have to do is change 1% and you can have it
>   any other way you want it.  On top of this,
>   there are many format conversion programs
>   out there that will do most of this for you.

well, if you followed all the rules of your format,
format conversion programs could do all the work.

even now, with the whitewashers' inconsistencies,
apps like eucalyptus can (on-the-fly) convert your
.txt files to beautiful e-books even on inferior kit.

there are people here who question you, michael.
i am not one of them.  no, i argue _against_ them.

-bowerbird