I think what Bumbles is trying to say, is that you are bringing up minutiae in your arguments as if these minor, unimportant changes somehow are quite major and game-changing. Or at least, that's what I'm seeing in many of your arguments.
Well, since he did not say that, that's a pretty big leap.
And I haven't read a single person who is a big FR fan who thought that there were not a LOT of fluff changes to that setting. Entire countries and gods and organizations got wiped out. If those are unimportant and minutiae to you, fine. They might not be to other people.
The fact of the matter is that WotC appears to be going for a new and possibly younger crowd. I have no issue with that. It's smart business. I just understand it for what it is and do not claim that "It's still DND and it feels like DND".
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Each earlier edition made changes, but none of them to the extent that the game felt drastically different like this edition. I have over 30 entrenched years of picking my spells and having them actually do something other than just damage foes and do a few conditions, and where Fighters were extremely easy to play and mostly only did damage or possibly a grapple. I have come to grips with the fact that the game is totally different and don't have an issue. One of my players has not. It bothers him a lot. And, it probably bothers some other people.
The pre-release claim "It's still DND" is far from the truth for some people.
If it feels like DND to you and these changes are not game-changing for you, that's fine. I cannot argue how you feel. I cannot really understand how the fluff and crunch changes actually make DND feel the same to someone and are not game-changing, but meh.