I was very glad when 3E arrived with it's promise of 'a rule for everything'. Well, we all know, how that turned out...
Awesome? The answer's awesome, isn't it?
I only use errata I agree with, and some of it's REALLY dumb. I only ever started looking at errata when I got DMs that cared about it, and even then, it was a "check for errata" when we had a question/issue with something, not any attempt to keep up on it and familiarize ourselves with every last line.
Generally, I trust the ability of myself and my group to decide what's broken and fine for us, and how it should be fixed. And if I didn't trust the group like that, it's usually a good first omen that I should leave.
I'm still glad the errata is there, just to have in case of whatever reason. I just wish it was less flawed, because sometimes having a very bad errata for something that needed none is actually worse than having no errata for something broken. For example, the C.Psionics NERF limiting you to one Astral Construct at a time is pretty disgusting, but I could see lots of DMs just saying "too bad, it's the rules," and be done with it to a player who didn't like it. Conversely, if there were no errata on a very overpowered spell, you can bet for sure the DM is going to do something about it, even if there is no errata for it. Even if the book it came from has errata yet the spell does not, basically declaring that it is fine.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: groups are a lot more proactive in limiting and banning overpowered stuff than righting injustices of gimped abilities, so errata often leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.