Glicko System flawed?

EDIT (02/23/2011): Much of the information given below is outdated since I have lost intrest in improving my rating, and some of the reasons for this are mentioned in this post. Nevertheless I reached a 1461 rating a few days later. By beating lots of 1600s ...

I think there is a flaw in the Glicko system. It has no mechanism to count for fast rating progress. If you check my games you will see that I was at 1260 on the 24th of January and from then on it was all the way up beating 1400+ rated players most of the time. I think that Glicko makes you pay too much for your mistakes or rather your relaxing time . If you check my stats you'll see that I was at 1386 on the 3rd of January and then I thought I would relax, and lost 100+ rating points in the process .  I think that the Glicko rating system needs to be upgraded so that it can account for such phenomena. If I started playing at the 24th of January I'm pretty sure I would be over 1500 a couple days ago . Not to mention that this slow adjusting system discourages, to a certain extent, the player from playing, and he may go to some other site or server . GRUNTING: ... Chess.com ... taking care of so many features and forgeting ... the *obvious* ... like proper rating for its members ... [more grunting] ... what is Rench doing about it?

I hope Danny sees this and replies.

DISCLAIMER: THE ABOVE GRUNTING IS INTENTED FOR ENTERTAINING PURPOSES ONLY. SO IS THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS MR RENCH.

I think I know the answer to the question ... It's the "interaction" between the dozen ratings in chess.com that impedes my "Live Chess - Standard" rating increase. Ridiculous!

 Wrong, because people tend to give different importance on the various rated chess.com activities. So life is playing hard games with me .