Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
People very often take a position of either/or when debating an issue. I started out saying I use both when one or the other makes sense but I prefer independent when possible. However, people prefer to argue as if I had said, 'only use independents and independents are always a better choice even if they turn out to be lousy hotels'. What is that if not the biggest straw man argument of all in regards to this topic?
I do think that you were constructing a straw man in your original post - Firstly, there was a clear suggestion that the only type of chain hotel available today are those bringing the strong brand standards and conventions of the 80s - like Holiday Inns and the core Hilton and Marriott brand. Secondly, in the original post and subsequently there is the suggestion that for some reason independent hotels were much more likely to have beautiful views or be more characteristic. I can absolutely see how in Montana in 1986 this would probably have been true, but the world moved on a generation ago. Some of the world's most luxurious hotels are Amans, some of the most distinctive boutique hotels are Small Luxury Hotels of the World, charming little boutiques are increasingly grouping together into common management companies and even giants like Marriott are cooperating with tiny boutiques G-Rough in Italy.
I'm going to bow out of this thread, as similar to the one other time I've come across you on this forum, you're getting massively heated and offensive at anyone who questions your logic. If you want to continue contributing to Internet forums I'd recommend getting a friend or relative to read your posts and offer their feedback as to how you come across.