I think it is important to understand that Eric is trying his best to do a value analysis between the two cruise lines. That is a perfectly valid thing to do.
However - I also have sensed a bent in Eric's assessment of Regent. I know a lot of people who like Regent a great deal, and I personally have not been on Regent for a long time so I cannot comment.
I have noticed many of Eric's opinions were based on food - and I also heard stories about Regent's food having problems, but I have also heard that major steps have been taken in the last two years to improve that.
All of the new policies by Regent regarding inclusiveness of air and shore excursions are new - so it makes it vwery hard to do a comparison analysis between the two lines.
If you are comparing just food, I think most people would agree that Seabourn wins. I like good food, but I personally have never put it at the top of the cruise experience as a deciding factor.
My main criteria is convenience of seeing various destinations - I want small, well-organized tours or free shuttles. I want port-intensive itineraries and not too many days at sea.
Cruise lines like Oceania and Azamara have been thriving because of their new emphasis on itineraries along with good food. Convenience is a big plus in my book - much more important then food alone.
I can dine in Michelin restaurants onshore. I would never pick an expensive cruise line just because of good food if I wasn't also deeply interested in the itinerary.