#90374753 added by sabat at Video Games and You

#7 - sabat **User deleted account**

-1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

I think what he meant was those who play games per household. Not aiming at casuals or hardcore gamers. Just the fact that they play games.

#9 to #8 - sabat **User deleted account**

+1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#10 to #9 - icedragon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

But for the purpose of the study it was appropriate.

#11 to #10 - sabat **User deleted account**

-2 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#12 to #11 - icedragon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

I think that was kind of the point the author was going for. Ultimately when trying to prove a point you go with information that benefits your point best. He could've done it your way and decided to not use that information because it didn't support his point as well as what he used.

#14 to #12 - sabat **User deleted account**

+1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#15 to #14 - icedragon

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

Welcome to politics.

#16 to #15 - sabat **User deleted account**

+2 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#18 to #16 - icedragon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

Same difference because they use the same method. You're not going to make a study that does not support what you are saying. It all devolves into politics. Facts are always twisted to best suit the user. you would be hard pressed to find something that did not have twisted facts. Perhaps I should've said something different but point remains the same.

#19 to #18 - sabat **User deleted account**

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#52 to #19 - icedragon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/23/2013) [-]

What is a gamer? Someone who plays Games. You're saying that, that is not true.