Nope, i don't agree. I feel her point stands without it having been true in the original way tennis was played.
And before you start arguing with me over whether Sarah meant that or not, i don't give a damn what she meant. From the start i was stating my opinion, not hers, since I'm not, to paraphrase you, a know-it-all, so i don't know what she meant.

I love arguing with you Neil, you don't give in at all! I hate it when some people are so eager to end up agreeing after arguing...

Can anyone tell me why Federer is still on the same ranking points even though he went out in the first round? last week he was 6330 and he's still 6330 this week.  

You're right about Dubai, it was a week earlier last year. But, he has not yet dropped the points from last years Indian Wells, because that was played over 2 weeks, the past week and the coming week. Anyway, he's not defending zero from IW, he's defending 5 points which is what you get for a first round exit in GS and MS tourneys.

Don't worry!
Its actually quite interesting - for GS and MS tourneys, they give 5 points for a first round loss, but for IS tourneys they give nothing. I remember they used to give 5 points even for IS tourneys, but they changed it. What i don't understand is why they kept it by GS and MS tourneys - why do you deserve anything?

There are seperate points for qualifying, so i don't think its for that.

They're idiots, the guys who sort out the rankings for the ATP. They also very often make mistakes, i've spotted 2 in the top 20 already.

Basically, Federer did not lose any points this week, because he wasn't defending any. The points from Dubai last year came off the rankings last week, because it was played a week earlier last year.