I have the first printing of the 4th edition, which doesn't include that line.
I've got the errata for all the books, but unless something comes up in game that specifically calls for that kind of information then I don't bother checking. For example, I had actually forgotten that the newest form of the regeneration power can heal stun damage. In that case my first statement about not healing stun damage was wrong.
Regeneration has gotten some serious changes throughout the editions (I'm using this as an example). Did I read each book cover to cover to see each change? Not really, I skimmed through each one, stopping to focus only on things that were relevant to the game I was running. Occasionally, my players would run into something with regeneration, and that was important to know about, so I know how it changed through the editions. In the first and second editions, if you didn't outright kill the thing with regeneration (taking it to Deadly damage and beyond, and it rolling a 1 to fail the regenration check) then at the end of the Combat Turn ALL DAMAGE WAS REMOVED. This started changing in the third edition, making it heal a certain amount of damage per combat turn (something like its Essence or Magic rating in boxes) and making it more killable (still rolled to see if it outright died, though). This damage included any Physical damage from drain, and overcasting a spell for physical damage instead of stun damage was a viable, and even suggested, tactic for any spellcaster, let alone one with regeneration.
The point I'm making about all this is that I have played, and run, every single edition of SR since its release in 1989. As new rules come out, I only look at the things that are specifically relevant to the game I'm running (decking/hacking has changed so much with each edition I have to read the chapter anew each time). This sometimes means that, if I don't notice any large changes as I peruse the chapters, then I assume that it is the same as previous editions. This is a timesaver on my part, and also introduces error to my knowledge base (details, its all in the details). It means that I sometimes, in error, I state things as fact. My shelves are bursting with SR rulebooks and sourcebooks, so I sometimes take for granted the knowledge I have on the subject.
The best thing that anyone can do in such a situationis the same as what Chaemera did: quote the page number for me to see the detail. As the old man around here, my information is vast, but not necessarily up to date. Politely point out where I was wrong, and I'll back off. Get rude, and I'll dig in.
