I thought it was by pouring? I've seen photos of MP clergy holding peoples heads over a font (obviously a small one mean for babies), and pouring water over their head; it's still the not the right way to baptize, but, it's not sprinkling (which as far as I understand, has never been acceptable by economy).
I think, in these situations, because of the 'animosity' between different parties everyone will try and portray the other in the worst light, and exaggerate things one step further than the previous bad was. For example, it certainly sounds worse that they were 'sprinkled' instead of poured instead of immersed. That way, people think, 'Hey, these RTOC bishops don't know what they are doing? If they do this, then obviously they are incompetent, or secret this or that."
Here's the problem; if you say baptism by pouring can't be accepted by economy, under any circumstances, then you have real problems? Why? Because Met. Seraphim (Lade) was a Lutheran (1) who was chrismated by the Russian Church in the earlier part of the 20th century. He eventually was made a monk, and then ordained all the way up to bishop. He was made Abp. of Berlin, etc, etc. Anyway, it was Met. Seraphim, the apparently 'unbaptized' Lutheran ho ordained Met. Vitaly (2) (the First Hierarch of the ROCOR), to the Priesthood back in 1940. Now, can anyone tell me who an unbaptized man, whose baptism was not able to be accepted even by the extremes of economy (which some maintain pouring cannot), and was Chrismated by the Russian Church, could even be Chrismated? If you aren't baptized you can't be truly chrismated; and, needless to say, neither can you be ordained. Ergo, if this 'logic' holds, not only were these RTOC priests not truly chrismated, or ordained, in addition, Met. Vitaly was never really ordained to the Priesthood! And, needless to say, how could he have been ordained a Bishop!? Now, does anyone realize where this road would take us? If these men are not Priests because they were received by economy from a non-Orthodox church who baptized them by pouring, with the argument that such baptism cannot be filled by the grace of Chrismation, then, where does that leave us with Met. Vitaly?
Obviously the answer is that we don't need to go down that road because the road is the wrong way, and that the Church can, and has, and does, have the ability by economy to accept non-immersive baptisms. Otherwise, everyone baptized by, chrismated by, or ordained by Met. Seraphim is completely invalid; not to mention all the people baptized by, chrismated by, and ordained by Met. Vitaly, and of course, the effect of all those they ordained who baptized people etc. What happens if we discover that Abp. Seraphim, or Abp. Leonty (who conveyed the gift of the Apostolic Priesthood to Abp. Akakius) should have somone in their past who baptized them who had been originally a Lutheran who was chrismated and then made a priest in pre-Revolutionary Russia?
Like you noted, Jonathan, in these cases you generate more problems than you solve.
In Christ,
Fr. Enoch
(1) See note 111 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Zuoyd6 ... 29&f=false). He was from a Protestant (as I understand from another book, a Lutheran) family; and I can tell you, they didn't baptize Lutherans in Russia in 1903.
(2) (http://stvladimirs.ca/wordpress/his-emm ... an-vitaly/)