interesting that asking for verification
of
"no shred of evidence exists for the brains being
altered in game users"
gets so much hostilty...
I guess you have no study to cite, and that being
said then I guess
THERE IS NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT GAME USERS
BRAINS ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED BY THEIR GAME ADDICTION.
and so I guess your original statement isn't so
useful...
I continue with the noting that your defintion of
addiction is most flawed....
that addiction can include only psychological
dimensions,
and therefore it would seem appropriate to note
"the addiction of game
users..."
which is I believe where we started...
sadly I was hoping for something a bit more
concrete to debate about....
otherwise why the post?
Muraco
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:08
PM
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game
Addiction
>
> thus far, no one but you has indicated that there needs to
be a cited
> study in order to establish that "no shred of evidence
exists".
>
> you *could* go fire up google, instead of trolling the
AIR list....
>
> elijah
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002,
muraco wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:53:32
-0700
> > From: muraco <one@muraco.org>
>
> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org
> > To:
air-l@aoir.org
> > Subject:
Re: [Air-l] Video Game Addiction
> >
> > coool then someone is
going to cite the source???
> > this study that looked at users
brains???
> >
> > I am not hostile but I do think I want
things cited, and not spouted off
> > without much thinking...
>
>
> > so this study???
> >
> > ----- Original
Message -----
> > From: "elijah wright" <elw@stderr.org>
> > To:
<air-l@aoir.org>
> > Sent:
Saturday, October 19, 2002 4:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game
Addiction
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
Hmm, and I am also unaware of any study that actually looked for altered
>
> > > brains in video-game addicts, so you must know of such a study as
you
> > > > are claiming "no shred of evidence" was found. I
should like to know
> > > > about the study that actually looked
at these game users brains. Please
> > >
> > > tsk,
tsk. hostile?
> > >
> > > "no shred of evidence"
can be interpreted to mean "no evidence has been
> > > presented" as
easily as "there is evidence to the contrary"... two rather
> >
> different options.
> > >
> > > which was actually
meant is debatable, no? semantics :)
> > >
> > >
elijah
> > >
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Air-l mailing
list
> > > Air-l@aoir.org
> > >
http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Air-l mailing
list
> > Air-l@aoir.org
> > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
> >
>
>