This is where you went wrong. His gear/spec/build has no bearing on whether or not his argument is solid. This is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.
I'm aware of what ad hominem is. :P
The argument in the thread was never a sound one to begin with.
Fatality made a troll comment. Then Alt made a troll comment. Then I came in with a "You've got no room to talk" sort of comment.
From there it was simply a baseless back and forth that can be summed up with:
"Nuh uh" vs. "Uh huh"
There's no room to make sound arguments on who knows what in regards to the gameplay in a fictional universe, which is why it was dubbed a "pissing contest" in the first place. We simply do not have sufficient evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion about the specifics of each player/poster. Instead, we usually rely on anecdotal evidence to support our beliefs on the topic.
For example: You, apparently, know Alt in some fashion. You've either played with him, or at least seen him in action. From this, you can conclude that he, at least, has the general idea of how to play in a competitive fashion.
You do not know me, outside of a couple of light hearted and pointless encounters in Elwynn Forest. You have no reason to believe that I would know what I'm talking about. You, likely, have no idea of the impact my suggested changes could make for his character. You have no actual metric to gauge my knowledge of the game by.
So, you are likely left with the viewpoint of: "I know Alt, and he's pretty good. I don't know Sheevah, and he just seems argumentative." Because of this, you are biased and choose to represent his side of the argument, rather than taking the impartial view to suggest that there is truth in both sides.
Everyone is also yet to refute the idea that any of my suggested changes were actually off base. Instead, everyone is defending the idea that Altronix is not a bad player. In reality, it makes no difference to me if he is an awesome rogue or a terribad rogue, only that there are simple changes available to boost the performance of the character.
It's about the size of the reward vs the effort required. Sure, he could spend his time and his gold to make his pvp gear more correct, but if he rarely ever uses it, why waste the resources?
Is he required to use his resources to make changes if he deems that it is not necessary? No.
Is he able to convince someone that doesn't know him that he is "good" at PvP when there are obvious and simple things that could be addressed to make his character perform at a higher level than it would otherwise? Absolutely not.
Does it make him bad? No.
Does it make his advice/opinions in regards to PvP undergo more scrutiny than it otherwise would? Yes.