I agree in principle with what you're saying about Bing vs. Goog, but I'm quite astounded by your leaps of logic. Nobody here can make a claim for either search engine being better, because as the old saying goes (approximately): "I see you anecdote, and raise you two."
The two engines gave quite similar results for such a clear unambiguous and uncommon term. This implies they are spidering with similar coverage.
Most of the results that are controversial/missed by a search engine will occur at the periphery of the web. There's one giant honkin' connected in the Web, so it's quite unsurprising that the first few dozens of results for a well-defined, common term will show up in all major search engines. Your search does NOT imply that they are spidering with similar coverage. See the paper by Broder: Broder et al
Google's results were clearly more relevant. This implies that Bing's ranking algorithm is still not as good as Google's.
Anecdotes and subjective judgments do not result in implications, unless you're Sarah Palin.
one occurs overwhelmingly in an unwanted context. Bing borks them.
This is interesting, but again, "miserable failure" can be used as an anecdote for Google "borking" too.