>>24696100
Something I think that is remarkable here is that I used the word "plain" and in your response you put "pure" in quotes even though I never used that word, but if I did, it would totally change the tone and attitude of my initial question, which would make your response make sense. Since it's not at all what I said or intended, your post instead just drips with classicist elitism and physics envy.

I was just asking if there was anyone that just publishes the plain text in physical form of a 2000 year old public domain text so that students like me could get physical copies for reading practice. A version with 1/3 of the page being scholarly footnotes that costs $280 doesn't seem to fit that bill somehow.

To some people the footnotes might be worth $260, but I would rather have a plain $20 paperback, if only it existed.