The problem with TotalBiscuit's augment, and indeed most of the discussion of PvP vs. PvE weapons is that it is built on the idea that other people having nice things diminishes your nice things. In other words so what if it only takes a few hours of play to get a weapon that is somewhat the equivalent of a Black Temple weapon? Does that make your Black Temple weapon worse? The most honest poster in the linked forum topic is the one who says that since PvE weapons are so hard to get they should give a big advantage over PvP players. If you view it this way at least you have a legitimate gripe, in other cases you just essentially wishing bad things on other players.

With the increased use of resilience and rating requirements the whole "welfare epic" thing should really be over now. Yes , if you're good at PvP you can get weapons that help in PvE. Just as your Black Temple weapons are pretty good in PvP. In the end one doesn't diminish the other.

Very well said. I think that if there were a way Blizzard could keep PvP gear in PvP only and vice versa you wouldn't have all this complaining. Right now, I'm wearing the Vindicator's Pendant of Conquest and want to upgrade my Veteran's Silk Cuffs to Vindicators - and I mostly PvE. Those items are just ungodly in terms of PvP. Sure they might have a little useless resilience on them, but the other stats more than make up for it.

But now, while I'm more PvE focused, I have to get in my arena matches every week and grind the battlegrounds occasionally because there are PvP items that are just so much better than PvE items. Find a way to keep them separate and you wouldn't have nearly as much QQ'ing.