Online Poker: Tired old dog that is 'rigged'

Is online poker rigged? Google it and the forum threads will go on forever about it.

After a few months playing cash games, I must confess I found some of the arguments compelling...
Action flops to induce more rake.
'Bad luck' runs when bankroll is short to induce more deposits.
'Beginners luck' runs to hook new players to the site.
Etc Etc and so on.

As always with a problem, be it religion, politics, chess, life and poker (listed in order of importance obviously), my head will torture me throughout the day until I work through the issue logically until I obtain a conclusion... be it right or wrong, the important bit is not the answer, but that the conclusion is entirely (or at least mostly) a product of my own reasoning, rather than a dronelike regurgitation of peer or preferential opinion.
This is not the friend winning process it appears to be.

Anyway, the point I want to make, is that I don't know if i'm right, but i'd like to express the process I took to reach the opinion.
The first thought process occurs along the lines of whether the proposed theory of rigged poker fits in with my own experience.
First Thought: omgz yez cos this one time i flopped a straight n lossed 8 dollas cos i went all in n got called, but the guy only had like second pair, but then hit a backdoor by the river.... Omg so sick!
Second thought (after taking the first thought process out the back and disembowelling it with a blunt spoon). How did this situation occur?
Well to be honest, i'd got into the habit of making continuation bets, and from my regular range (ducks arse range) middle cards were most certainly not in my usual range.
The logical play in this situation for my opponent is to raise, since calling with second pair is too weak once you've established that it is merely a continuation bet.
With a flopped straight, i can either smooth call or re-raise back. I prefer the re-raise as very few people throw away a re-raise without calling a repop at low limits. Very easy to go all in with this situation. Especially against weaker players.

Is this situation valid? Actually no, it shouldn't be, because i am crediting the low limit player with higher than stage 1 thinking. But it does serve as a scenario as to why a large pot occurs on a marginal hand.
This. Happens. A. Lot. Online. Large pots happening, and all-in a regular occurance.
This might seem to be off track, but i am getting to my point.
You don't normally see this happen as often, so it stands to reason you see runner runner wins against the odds more often.
The poker player natural state of ill-conceived superiority does not meld well with this regularity of occurance. The brain does not allow it.
I know i do it. Only recently i was knocked out of a mtt on the final table when my flopped flush turned into a full house for my villain by the river. I remember it vividly, yet i struggle to remember the exact details when earlier in the same tournament, i was all in for my tournament life and hit runner runner flushes against stronger hands. Twice.
My mind doesn't retain the information for getting lucky but it remembers OTHER PEOPLE getting lucky with unnerving accuracy.

So in short, I can't help but feel that a combination of bad players, and lots and lots of hands, combined with a psychological inability to compare bad situations all mount up to the feeling that the world is out to get you.

In shorter.  You suck.

With 'bad luck' runs as your bankroll is small to force another deposit... but I have to say, I almost instantly dismiss this on the basis that when you are worried about your bankroll, you make bad decisions.  Simples.

Watching High Stakes Poker Season 2 at the moment, and watching Daniel Negreanu flop the nuts 3 times, and have somebody hit quads against him by the river 3 times? Was it rigged, well obviously not.  If that happened online, there would be an INQUIRY!

So this is where my mind is at... it easier to blame the system than your own bad play, and most players are psychologically incapable of admitting this.

Superuser accounts on the other hand, well, the fuss at UltimateBet was pretty damning.  I suspect a superuser account is less of a risk at micro 0.02/0.04 limits.