Who's faulting Federer!? I am not faulting him.
I am saying that his wins mean less without facing his rival. It's like taking a multiple choice English test without the written essay part that you suck at. Sure you got an "A" but someone omitted the biggest part of the test for you.
That's the worst analogy of all-time. If I get an A on a pure MCQ without the essay part that I suck at, I still get an A
. The only thing that the asterisk next to my grade would symbolise is that I totally kicked ass at the test (hence getting an A* - A Star).
For certain there is a distinction between 250 and 1000 events. Yes you could argue that winning a 250 event is still winning a tournament and thus equal to winning any other non slam event. The difference between a 250, 500 and 1000 tournie is the competition, OH SNAP! That's why some posters here like to call top players vultures for winning such 250 mickey mouse events...
Again, your analogy is flawed. Nadal entered the 2012 Wimbledon Championships. He lost in the second round. That's not the same as a player winning a 250 tournament that the top players did not enter
Roger can't beat Nadal in a slam...he won't. The wins he has since 2008 are tainted, he's a benefit of luck and circumstance. Nothing more.
He did beat Nadal in a couple of slam finals, so stop trying to rewrite history. It's not his problem that Nadal couldn't get past the second round of Wimbledon this year, or that he lost to Ferrer in Melbourne 2010. Nadal losing before the final to meet Roger in no way taints his achievements. Only a Nadaltard/Fedhater would think that. Did he get lucky when Nadal lost early? Of course he did. But Nadal losing was not the only reason for Roger's victories. He had to show up, take the court, and, gasp, play tennis
to win matches - and that was exactly what he did.
Anyway, you can discount his victories all you want; sadly for you, a win is a win, and there's nothing that anyone can say that'd diminish his success and achievements.