I thought it was clear what he was complaining about, and it seemed
like a reasonable complaint to me.
The complaint was, if I understood it correctly:
1) The predominant reference available to amateur observers is the
Washington Double Star Catalog, and
2) This reference is badly out of date, not indicating for the many
double stars that have already been determined to be line-of-sight
doubles only this fact, or for many systems that are true binaries,
the results that are already known about their orbits and periods.
This means that an amateur observer who is trying to collect useful
data about doubles to help determine which are visual doubles and
which are true binaries is shooting in the dark.
On top of wasted observations in collecting data, the method of
submitting data - having it published in a magazine - is no longer the
best available method; it is an out-of-date bottleneck that will slow
progress and thereby cause more duplication of effort.
These objections seem to make sense. On the other hand, amateur
observations do need multiple confirmations before being accepted as
final, and it may be that the office responsible for the WDS catalog
lacks the manpower to handle amateur submissions directly. But if the
WDS catalog isn't including up-to-date satellite observations by
professional astronomers, then at least the first objection seems to
have a strong force.