Quote Exalted Wombat:
Well, sort of. Here's the summing up from one of the quoted reviews.
"The bottom line is that this is a fine-sounding system, with good onboard effects and processors, which offers a number of unique advantages in a live performance situation. However, I feel that there are a number of significant ergonomic shortcomings which will need to be addressed before it becomes a serious contender in the recording sector of the market.".
Read that as "this is a great live mixer".
A long way short of "this is a turkey".
Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills. Its says the user interface has 'significant ergonomic shortcomings'. And because of them it cannot be considered a 'serious contender' in the market. For a mixer that is a quite a major failing.
And you cannot argue with the power of this review if it made Roland upset for years and caused them to abandon the whole system within months!
How blunt do you need the reviews to be? Perhaps a simple number system like in Future Music might be more appropriate for you. However, do bare in mind that they have rather low journalism standards and have been caught out stealing reviews from other publications.