I'll be perfectly honest with you, aside from your statement that "Even saying 'correlation = causation' isn't "statistically innacurate" - it's just innacurate. There's no statistical error there, it's just not an appropriate assumption" (There is a statisitcal error there because at no point do the statistics reflect causation, merely correlation. Big difference.), I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. I think the issue here is that you are just far better at putting into words what I was actually trying to say and you misinterpreted the intent of my original post. Many of the statements I made about aggression were intended to be facetious to point out the error in assuming that correlation = causation, but my writing failed to convey that. I wasn't stating the correlation doesn't exist or is not a statistical truth, but that the general public does not really understand what correlation actually means. And I also wasn't trying to argue against the study because it was correlation I was arguing against the study because correlation studies are the ones most frequently abused by those who wish to ban violent video games.
So in all, I agree with you. I just think you took what I wrote the wrong way, which is most likely my error since I often times write like a 3rd grader.