I think it was an interesting review.
While Traveller was influential and in some places brilliantly concieved, it appears dated to some today. A must confess liking it with all it's wrinkles.
Anyway, I do think the reviewer might have missed the fact that the setting is written in the late seventies and early eighties. If you compare it to the science fiction those guys then were reading it doesn't look that dated and odd. Sure it might be a bit far fetched that "nothing have changed" for 3000 years. It's part of the genre, though.
A quibble about facts. I don't think you have to keep track of two kinds of hit points. Assessing damage to characteristics is done after the fight, when you roll your Medical skill or something. Often this means you won't be in another fight until healed, and there's no need to keep track of two hit points. Clunky? Well, a bit.
Two sets of damage then. I don't understand what the reviewer means, but I think the fact that a description of the system (which looks, correct, as far as I know) comes out so confusing is kind of telling.
It works better in play and could have been better explained, or designed. Clunky? Indeed!
Otherwise I found the review interesting and informative. It wasn't clinical and cool, but I think it expressed why the game was good and when it wasn't. Thanks.