I could say exactly the same thing.

If that's what you ACTUALLY meant, then you could have put

"I think she means in recent history Neil."

and i would then have said

"Yeah possibly, i'm sure she will tell us "

Instead, you called me pedantic (an insult if i'm not mistaken) , AND said what "she meant".

So stop with your BS posts and don't lecture me on how to relate when you can't do it either. I have no problem at all relating to people. Besides, who wants to be normal. Try and tell me if I am wrong.

And I like arguments

I know you like arguments!
I didn't write what you suggested, because it does not interest me what she meant. What i was trying to say was that her point was valid even though the game used to be played differently. But yes, i could still have phrased it better.
I did not mean to call you pedantic (although i'm not saying you're not!), i just said that concerning the debate in this thread, your point was irrelevant, since we are not dealing here with tennis history. So, yes, to bring up tennis history to argue with someones point in a way which is irrelevant, is pedantic.
Anyway, i'd have thought that to your mind pedantic would be a compliment!

Sounds like a few people on this site!

Sorry that I'm not a complete historian on the game... Jesusss.

Like i said before, its irrelevant what she meant. My point was more that her argument still stood whether it was also true in ancient history or not. All i said was that its pedantic to haggle over little points like whether it's always been true in the history of the game or not, since it doesn't have anything to do with the point she was making, which i fully agreed with.

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?