In a different Internet fora a couple of people mentioned that it was there wish to be received by baptism, but their priests refused. Why in the world would a priest do such a thing?
Since we don't know the history of the people, it's hard to say. Maybe they have already been Anglican and Greek Old Calendarist or something like that, in which case they may feel like they still haven't had a "proper Orthodox baptism," but the priest and his bishop might feel differently. There seems to be mixed feelings about conditional Baptisms, but I think the relevant canon talks about doing it if there are doubts about the baptism--such as someone telling you that they think you were baptized as an infant, but there being no certainty of that. In other words, I don't think there is a canon which says "if a convert wants to get baptized, he can't be refused". And even if there were, it's still up to the bishop to decide how canons get applied.
Beyond that, I think it should be a matter of obedience, as the Scripture says: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account" (Heb. 13:17). As much as we might not like it, the catechumen's has no "rights" to tell the bishop (or the priest) how he must be received; and to think that we as neophytes know better than the bishop: well that says a lot about our (improper) mindset, but even supposing that we would be correct in our opinion, it raises the question of why we are putting ourselves under the authority of that bishop to begin with? Why put yourslelf under a bishop who you have no intention of obeying (in matters that you are suppose
to obey him on) when he doesn't agree with you?
Now, certainly a wrong decision can be made, but God will not hold it against someone because the bishop decided to only chrismate instead of baptize. The Church Fathers brought monophysites* (full blown heretics, at least in the eyes of those who wrote the canons) into the Church by confession alone, for Pete's sake!
I am personally for
baptizing most converts coming into Orthodoxy, but again that's not really our call. I myself am in a position where, yeah it would have been nice to have had an "Orthodox baptism," but what is done is already done, sacramentally speaking (I became Orthodox via chrismation, and have been communing for years), and I can't go back now and redo things. Sometimes, once things are set in motion, you just have to go with them, whatever your wishes might be.
I've often heard over and over that we don't make a pronouncement on other churches sacraments, either positive or negative.
Such language might be a nice way of avoiding conflict (and it is true) when talking about salvation, but it is not true regarding sacraments. We can certainly know that in some groups there are not grace-filled sacraments (e.g., the Arians), though it may be true that in other groups it is too cloudy to know. Agnosticism can only be pushed so far when it comes to sacraments, for the Fathers and Councils clearly speak of specific groups being deprived of sacraments. Accepting someone by chrismation or confession does not necessarily mean that the new Church accepts the sacraments of the previous group as valid (though it might); it might just mean that the Church is using economia to bring someone in, and in that case the chrismation/confession fills in that was lacking (which may or may not be everything).
*Now I'm not calling Oriental Orthodox monophysites here!