Wow, Mistwell, you really need to relax a bit. Look, I missed where you talked about it earlier. I did see where you repeatedly stated the six page bit. So, it does look a bit (note, a bit) disingenuous to talk about only 6 pages. Fair enough, doesn't really matter.
You're doubling down on making it personal, while telling me to relax?
How about you don't make it about me. Can we start there? My argument has nothing to do with how genuine my feelings are about this topic. Calling me disingenuous, making that claim the opening paragraph of your remarks, and then justifying it again rather than talking about the actual topic, makes it pretty clear to me you'd prefer to take shots at me.
Can we stop that, and not bring it up again?
But, could you at least respond to the criticism here? The point is...
The point is you start out calling me a liar, and when I clear that up and make it clear it pissed me off to be called a liar, you justified your actions even after admitting you hadn't read the full context.
It's hard to get to a later point when you, or anyone, does that. Because being called a liar is "a bit" more important to me than some stupid internet argument about errata in dungeons and dragons. That's the point, right now.
because of the way the errata is presented, you are making a false comparison by insisting on page count.
It's not a false comparison. I am commenting on formatting, which is involved with page count. I explained why page count matters, as a practical thing. It's an important issue for me, and some others. It's fair to compare page count, when page count is something that matters to you. I know it doesn't matter to you because you're more concerned with content - but that doesn't make it a false comparison just because my focus is on something that isn't your focus.
There is easily as many changes in the 3e errata document as there is in the 4e one.
I disagree when it comes to 3.0e, but that's a much lesser point than the sheer page count quantity of errata, for me.
If you want to insist that there is less in one or more in another, actually start counting changes, instead of insisting on page count.
Again, it's a lesser point. But I am not going to do that for you. Page count says one is longer than the other, but such a margin it's incredible. If you disagree, and you seem to, then you do the count. I am showing 27 pages versus 10 pages, and the DID reprint entire paragraphs sometimes in those 10 pages. On it's face, one is longer than the other. That's not 100% proven, but I think it's enough to make it clear the burden is on someone who disagrees with that first-blush look to prove it's not how it looks.
Which has been the big problem throughout this thread. People have looked at something, made claims about it, then not bothered to actually do any real fact checking.
I care what you say about me - and since you're raising this point to me, I am going to call you on it. MY issue is page count, and I did the fact checking on page count. Don't tell me I didn't fact check when I did.
Is there very little errata in AD&D? Sure that's true. But, that ignores the fact that there really, REALLY should have been. Is the page count for the errata in 4e much longer than 3e? Again, sure, that's true, but that's because 90% of the 4e document is simply reprinting entire sections instead of simply giving a bulletin point.
If you're going to use a number like 90%, in the same paragraph when you rant about others not fact checking before they make claims, you better have fact checked before you make that claim. And we both know you didn't. So, why are you holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself to?
Maybe if we could pick a standard and then make comparisons, that might be a lot more helpful.
I did. I picked page count. I did the comparison. You don't like that criteria, so pick your own and do your own actual comparison.