That sounds like a reasonable analysis to me, caughtupinthemoment. I don't play bullet chess, but the live/standard chess on this site is the most difficult for me of all chess sites I have played at, by far.
Ratings
Sort:
Players rated 1200 who can move fast without obvious blunders don't exist.
Players rated 2000 who can move fast without obvious blunders don't exist either... but I guess their obvious blunders aren't quite as obvoius 
haha waffllemaster
After conducting a vast amount of studies on chess.com (not really), I have concluded that blitz ratings are far more accurate than standard ratings in determining skill level. For one, standard ratings are usually SEVERELY underrated. Ex: a person rated 1700 on chess.com is probably around a 1900-2000 FIDE rated player. However, this conversion is again, not completely accurate. Ex: 90% of titled players who have played over 100 standard games still boast ratings under 2000.
For blitz on the other hand, the ratings are suprisingly accurate. Many of the people I have played at the 1700-1900 level have had uscf/fide ratings about equilvalent to their blitz ratings.
For bullet, the best players either
a. can move fast without blundering or
b. are extremely strong players who can legitimately win a game in 1 minute.
That leads to a HUGE disparity in bullet ratings as an 1800 rated fide player whos 70 years old probably has a bullet rating of around 1200 and an 1800 who has a laggy computer probably would have a rating of around 1000 (and shouldn't be playing bullet in the first place). On the other hand, players rated 1200 who can move fast without making obvious blunders would have ratings of 1800-2000.
Those our just my thoughts. Feel free to comment below with your thoughts.