You missed my point largely there my friend.
It was very simply: The term expansion itself is a non-standard description of something. Just because most expansions have a specific set of things, there is no very cleary definition or boundary between what amount of a content release is considered an actual expansion and what is not. There is no clearly defined industry standard of what needs to be in something before it is allowed to be called an expansion. So any discussion concerning this is pointless and about nothing but semantics.
This is a very simple fact despite all the claims made in this thread.
If a product expands on itself, than whatever does that expanding can be called an expansion of the earlier product. That is the only standard the word 'expansion' has: that it must expand on the original product.
Rise of the Hutt Cartel expands on the original product.
As did most of their content patches.
Simple and 100% true facts. Unlike the claim: Rise of the Hutt Cartel is not an expansion. The fact it is still being debated now is, in itself, clear proof that the fact that it is not an expansion is, actually, not a fact but an opinion.
We just disagree, you can call a duck whatever you want (and I agree you can).
However I don't believe calling a duck a swan makes
it a swan.
Or an adventure pack and expansion makes
it an expansion.
You believe calling something an expansion makes it an expansion, but you'll never convince me of that I'm afriad (especially when Bioware EA's PR department had very specific reasons for calling it an "expansion" IMO - most of which would be said to be more than a little disingenuous).
Or basically if someone tries to sell me a duck as a "swan" I'm always going to say "Er....... no. That is a duck!