I noticed that the longer quote was out of context myself, but as I review Bibleprotector's post I think perhaps what he meant to be saying was that Burgon appears to concede that the revisions did result in the removal of many an obscurity in the AV (although in context he's pointing out that they added half a dozen for each removed). Burgon didn't speak of it as a "necessity" but I think in context of his post Bibleprotector merely meant to be pointing out that Burgon did recognize that some of the revisions were clarifying (even though he considered them not worth the damage done along with them). (Of course I'd really like to know exactly which changes Burgon considered useful and that information doesn't seem to be available.)

And although he did take the other quotation out of context as well, I believe his point was only to use it to define the sort of clarifying changes Burgon would have meant by the first quote: "representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms” Burgon is saying that the endangerment of the Bible read by millions for the sake of even such useful corrections is not worth it, but I think Bibleprotector only meant the quote to act as a clue to what kind of corrections Burgon would have considered useful. (Again I'd love to know which words needed to be represented more accurately, which tenses needed greater precision, which words were considered to be archaisms in those days).

I did have trouble with Bibleprotector's post just because there is so little specificity. I'm not sure I know any more about specific revisions the revision committee hoped to see done, but perhaps the point is it wasn't clearly spelled out because that information is hard to come by.