Nevski,
When a Roman Catholic Christian is received into the Orthodox Church in America through chrismation, it is not to imply that his Roman baptism is recognized as "valid." The theoretics behind the practice is that chrismation corrects whatever "deficiencies" exist with respect to that baptism. The baptism is certainly recognized on a certain level, but that is not to say that its "vaildity" is recognized. It's a nuanced thing to be sure, but the fundamentalist or super-trad mind doesn't deal well with nuance.
If you cannot tell, character assasination is getting you nowhere. If anything, it's obscuring whatever good points you may be trying to make.
Sacramental economy is certainly not foreign to us "fundamentalists." Metropolitan Anthony (first presiding heirarch of the ROCOR) wrote what was perhaps the modern masterpiece on this subject.
The reason why such "economy" is generally not practiced by "super-trads", is...
it is just that, "economy"; thus exactitude is "the rule", and it's not something that needs a whole lot of apologies to put into effect, if that is what a Bishop or Synod feels is appropriate.
it has been heavily misunderstood, and intentionally distorted in modern times by the "Orthodox" ecumenists. While I will grant that the perspective you put forward is "better than most" (you need only go to certain other forums to see what most "canonical Orthodox" now believe on this subject, precisely because this is what their parish priest is teaching, and what they are informed of in the seminaries and academic conferences), it still "wiggles" more than it should. You speak in terms of "what is lacking" or "deficiency"; do you mean, the lack of grace, or are you trying to be ambiguous?
If the "whatever is lacking" view (as if there was some kind of "half grace" that the heterodox could receive from their "baptism") is true (in the ecumenistic sense), or the outright "papists have true mysteries" view is valid, then there is absolutely no room for "exactitude". If anything, it is an abuse, a sacrelige even - for the Apostolic Canons teach, to baptize someone who has already been truly baptized, is sacrelige, and is to be severely punished.
OTOH, said Canons also teach that heterodox baptism is a "pollution by the un-Godly", and not to be recognized as a true Baptism.
Given this, people can talk about "nuances" or the alleged sophistication of their views - but in the end, it is a matter of whether or not one accepts or disregards the indisputable fact, affirmed by every single Holy Father who touches upon this topic, that there is no salvation outside of the Church of Christ, and that the "sacraments" of the heterodox and schismatics are empty vessels; thus, when receiving former heretics, there is no crime in "re-baptizing" them (for in substance, a heterodox baptism is simply a bathing of the flesh, which St.Peter tells us is not what we value Baptism for - it's the grace of Baptism which is of fundamental importance). If the Church has shown leniency for pastoral reasons, it is She (and not the heterodox) which births said convert, giving grace the already imposed form.
This is the faith of the Church of Christ - who are we as individuals to deny this?
Seraphim