its a valid question, as each has pros and cons
I have stuck with CRT after building a few office systems with LCD for family, as I play games, CRT is cheaper (I could afford 21" Dell trinitron recond' for small potatos) and better image, downside it weighs a ton and it emits stuff, however I have decided against a tin foil hat, lol
LCDs look technically swish (what is wrong with that smileys eyeball ???) they are light (weightwise) & space efficient, no emissions or static, but personally I can see them pixelate text and colour as well as the after-image shadowing, they are relatively easily damaged and they have been quite the pricey end of the market.
I use my computer for gaming entertainment and internet access. Gaming requirements modified by cost determine the system I use because internet access is easy to achieve with minimal hardware given the right connection. But I want to add that where I am coming from there is no hard-core to gaming, no cult, no us/them, just entertainment, a fun pastime which benefits from certain hardware, like TV only a lot more interactive. When an LCD/Plasma can match a CRT for image I will consider paying for it, but as it is I have a robust heavy steel frame computer desk and CRT image is better for gaming (and TV) so I cant see why I would want to.
IMHO Its probably not fair to say that LCD adoption is entirely driven by Emperor's / Jones's effects, they do have good qualities. But I think technophiles sometimes buy new stuff just because its interesting and new. You can't knock it because without early adopters the tech industry would not have such an easy ride or advance so rapidly.
But there are times where the early adoption perspective clashes with the gaming priorities and I think this is one of them. Another example is WinXP and its myriad pointless background processes interrupting game processing. Early adopters loved it but many gamers did not. Fortunately the market in monitors is not monopolised so gamers still get a choice in what monitor they use, which is how it should be.
So I guess I am saying that not all the people who appear to be gamers have gamers priorities uppermost, I would guess a proportion are early adopters who use games as a way to check out new technology. Nothing wrong with that but it can get a bit misleading if you take advice from an early adopter when you have primarily gaming priorities.