Well I guess it depends on how you define 'picking fights'. If you call discussing and debating varying viewpoints a 'fight' then I guess you are right. I often start threads that go against the 'accepted norm' for the purpose of sparking debate and yes, I am quite willing to defend a viewpoint. What do you think the definition of the word 'forum' is?

If you observe carefully pinniped, I attack no individual personally. I do attack entrenched beliefs however that have no real objective substantiation to back them up. There are many such beliefs in travellers' minds.

One? I could give dozens of examples across multiple countries. Accessibility laws and building laws are hard to prosecute and hotels manage to get away with that for years. Governments generally have few resources for enforcement and therefore will primarily target the big players. (e.g. Hilton.) Hotels have good reason to believe they are pretty much safe from prosecution, non-chain hotels more so. I reported one major breach of regulations I noticed to the relevant City Council in 2013 and legal action finally started against the hotel in 2016.

I am quite aware of how grandfathering of old regulations into building codes works. e.g. In Australia, if you require a building permit to renovate a section of a building, that section must be brought up to current standards. Hence, you can go to a hotel which meets current fire safety and accessibility standards on one floor and only meets older standards on other floors, depending on when they were last altered.

A newly built condominium having fire sprinklers not only throughout all public spaces but in each room in the individual condos themselves, yet right next door can be an older building with none whatsoever is an appropriate example. Sure, both 'by definition' meet the existing building codes of the local area. However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the old one had been "fully modernized" or "totally renovated and is up to today's standards" if it is still relying on grandfathered old regulations in order to pass. The only reasonable interpretation of "totally renovated and is up to today's standards" would include having upgraded the fire safety systems to today's standards too.

I wrote 4 paragraphs. They are all relevant to your question, but you only responded to one, by calling it a rant. It doesn't have the length or hyperbole to be accurately described as a rant, therefore surely that's a personal attack? It's certainly an attempt to discredit another's attitude without any objective substantiation to back it up.

You made lots of excuses for your pet hotel, including that there's "nowhere you could possibly install an elevator". Seriously? There's a 12th century Irish castle that has one. Or how about a stair lift? Sure, it may not be at a cost they'd like, but there's always a way. It looks like you are the one with entrenched beliefs that have no real objective substantiation to back them up.

Kremmen, the topic of this thread is avoiding chain hotels. The topic is not accessibility laws as applied to hotels. Yet the second is obviously the topic you wish to talk about. Start your own thread if you wish. Your transparent attempt to hijack this thread is not welcome by me as the OP of this thread.

Accessibility of chain hotels vs. non-chain hotels is clearly germane to a discussion about which to choose.

Whether or not you welcome it is not germane. Being the OP of the thread does not confer editorial control. Get over yourself.

I'd prefer to talk about the topic you posted. You, on the other hand, went off-topic in your attempts to discredit one of my valid reasons for choosing chain hotels in certain circumstances. It's a bit rich that you go on at length about why you disagree with a particular person's reason and then tell them that you are unhappy about the digression that you made.

Oops,

That is about as insulting a remark as can be made about a hotel and an entire country's discrimination laws. If it was made in public rather than anonymously on the internet, it would be enough to provide a legal case for libel. It is a written defamatory statement and therefore constitutes 'libel' unless the person writing it can back it up with proof.

I find too many such insulting comments made online without being challenged, simply because they can. I'd like to see you Kremmer, stand face to face with a hotel property manager/owner and the responsible government department minister and make that same statement.

You clearly have an 'agenda' Kremmen. I'm not interested in it and an anonymous venting of it. If you have a problem, speak out in public, face to face with those you are accusing. Stop hiding behind a handle on the internet. You remind me of people who take part in a protest and hide their faces behind a mask.

I hope I have also made my position clear enough to those commenting on Kremmen's comments.

Except that these threads all have one thing in common: it's you with the entrenched and incorrect belief, which gets refuted dozens of times in varying, different ways by many posters. Then you lash out and accuse people of ranting, going off-topic, etc.

There aren't FTers starting threads like "Chain hotels are always the best for everyone" or "Booking at Orbitz is always the best way to get maximum value." Most of us do different things in different situations, which flies in the face of your entrenched, incorrect beliefs. This actually leads me to believe that it's quite possibly a vested interest masquerading as a belief, given how illogical your premises often are to begin with.

Going back on topic, I just remembered that I did stay at several non-chain hotels in the US last year; one of them was the Yellowstone Park Hotel in West Yellowstone. It was surprisingly pretty decent considering the last minute nature of the trip; I was expecting to stay at least a couple of hours outside the park due to lack of availability.

Anyway, I think it really comes down to researching beforehand. In the past going with a major chain was easier as consistency was better guaranteed and it was harder to get information on smaller places, but now that there's TripAdvisor, FT, etc., it's easier to be satisfied with a non-chain hotel.

So there is one nice independent hotel in Switzerland. Great? Lots of my experiences with such hotels are......................bad AV systems, bad a/c or heating systems, worn out bedding, carpeting, etc. Inflexible check in/out times, No one on duty after midnight, or the person sleeping, so you have to ring the bell for 10 minutes to get in. You know, for a long time I avoided chain hotels as I had the same pretensions as this person. Spending over 100 days in London in hotels in 2 years about 20 years ago ina bunch of great but expensive "boutique" hotels, I came to the realization that for the same price, I was giving up a million points a year, which would cover all my family holidays. How stupid had I been to pass all that up.

I liken this thread to a story that happened to me: I was out to dinner with a friend of mine and his very pretentious girlfriend, who was all about brands and the like and was maybe 3-4 years out of a European communist state (It was 93 or so). I told a story about how I had been in Paris the month before, and had to have a lunch with a French colleague at Pizza Hut, and wasn't that strange. She lit into me, saying essentially what a peasant I was, and "How could I eat at Pizza Hut when there are thousands of Bistros in Paris!!!".

My response was the following:

1. I was meeting a French client for lunch, the Pizza Hut was downstairs from her office and SHE insisted on it. It would be rude not to eat there.
2. Oh, and by the way, it was my SEVENTY NINTH trip to Paris, including living there.
3. Believe it or not, I had never before eaten at a Pizza Hut (crazy huh?)

Later I learned from my friend that his girlfriend had never been to Paris,

I'd be happy to do so, if I somehow encountered them.

It would be nice if you'd keep to the topic instead of berating me though.

This is another ridiculous straw man. It is perfectly evident that hotels associated with hotel management companies or brands can be every bit as diverse as independent hotels. What chains bring you is a level of service guarantee, booking and often some form of frequent traveler benefits. What independent hotels can offer in some markets is greater choice and diversity in the service experience (for better or worse).

Anyone who would avoid a hotel simply because it's associated with a brand is making a political or "ethical" statement, rather than making an intelligent decision based on travel preferences. But, as ever, to each their own.

LOL, straw man arguments are rife EuropeanPete. For example, and there are plenty to choose from, here are 2 from the post just 2 before your own.

"So there is one nice independent hotel in Switzerland." refuted then by examples of many not so nice hotels (presumably in Switzerland). Where did I ever suggest that if you wanted nice hotel's, you should go independent vs. chain? Answer, nowhere did I suggest that. And we don't have to even touch on the hyperbole of saying there is 'one'.

"ina bunch of great but expensive "boutique" hotels, I came to the realization that for the same price, I was giving up a million points a year, which would cover all my family holidays. How stupid had I been to pass all that up." Where did I ever suggest staying in more expensive hotels? Yet someone wants to 'refute' that with 'I could pay the same and collect points as well'. I would suggest looking for more interesting independent hotels if they are available and paying less than for the chain hotels. The two examples in the photos I linked of the 'one nice independent hotel in Switzerland' vs. the Hilton chain hotel, are an example of just that. The independent is cheaper than the chain hotel. So getting points at the Hilton does not put anyone ahead when they have paid more to begin with obviously.

You say EuropeanPete, anyone who would suggest avoiding a hotel simply because it is associated with a brand is not making an intelligent decision based on travel preferences. I agree. Of course, nowhere did I suggest that anyone do that. I've stated several times that I use chain hotels in some circumstances where it makes sense for me to do so. So I'm sure you weren't trying to suggest that I personally make political, ethical, or non-intelligent decisions were you EuropeanPete.

Now what would you call someone EuropeanPete, who avoids independent hotels because they are not associated with a brand that gets them 'points'? Are they making an intelligent decision based on travel preferences? Or are they making non-intelligent decisions based on only one travel preference, points?

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?