Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
Why is it that people think their perception of somewhere is somehow the perception everyone will have? That to me is the height of arrogance and presumption. I do happen to love the outdoors and I have no interest in visiting Whistler after having visited once. It does not represent the 'outdoors' to me, it simply represents a typical N. American ski resort town.
If someone is planning a visit to a city, then 'outdoors' does not come into it at all unless that someone considers a walk through a park as representing the 'outdoors'. In which case, for Vancouver, Stanley Park will meet that definition.
If you actually want 'outdoors' in Canada, then by my definition of 'outdoors', you spend a week backpacking in one of the National/Provincial Parks, or canoeing in a place like Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. You don't go to Whistler for a day or take a ride up Grouse Mountain on the gondola. Or visit Niagara Falls for a day and call that 'outdoors'. There are plenty of far better places to experience the outdoors in Canada, than Whistler. 'No better place than Whistler', you must be joking Finkface.
Nuff said indeed.
Speaking of arrogance and presumption... your post is a great example. Your definition of outdoors may or may not be the same as others’, and that’s fine, but to imply that it’s a superior version is the height of arrogance and presumption. Not only that but you have taken the thread off topic by including areas of Canada which were not mentioned by the OP. You have a habit of this behaviour (see your closed thread about non-chain hotels).