[PhilHellmouth]

Your post speaks for itself. You went overboard writing a whole freakin essay. Haven't you got anything better to spend your time on than being overly critical of everything in breach of your watchdog standards?I was critical of the fact that Pacific has low numbers.I did not claim that the RNGs are rigged, although that is a possible inference to make, if you believe, like me, that some aren't very good (ie predictable cards.) Having said that I've played on a few sites and notice differences, and I think that some could be rigged. No I won't go and do a nerd-arse statistical analysis like you would, it's just what I think.You can use all the pseudointellectual jargon you want I'm going to stick with my colloquial approach because I think people get my drift and I don't have to justify like we're in a court of law.For the record Pacific is running a competition on at the moment, where players can win prizes by writing reviews. I'm not sure they would have been too happy if I included in my post a whole heap of disclaimers and the fact that I was writing this for a competition. *There was included at the end of the post a link/image saying "pacific poker in review" which took you to the site. This was later edited out by Admin, and I have now again put in a link. Nevertheless I stick by what I wrote 100%. It may not all be true, but it's what I believe and think, it's my opinion, and that's the point of a review. People can make of it what they want, I don't need you schooling me in review etiquitte and linguistic validity.