Personally I think the whole article (and at least a few of these posts) are rubbish. It's not not up to others to dictate what people may or may not like. Trip reports are great, but biased dictitorial bleatings are unhelpful. Now, visit Stonehenge or sit in my lounge chair watching a re-run of MASH, I'll choose Stonehenge thanks"
...........so you decided to make a biased dictatorial bleating yourself to "prove" your point, swanning_it ??????
Surely the initial point (valid, I think) being made was that the reality you see when visiting some places can fall well below the hype -so it was essentially a warning that disappointment can result from expectations unmet. The article was not an attack on all things touristy at all - just that tourists are more satisfied when they spend their time and money visiting places where the hype and reality are one and the same. No one was belittling places that have been successful at luring tourists - just the ones that lure them under virtually false pretences.
Swanning_it actually went some way to validating the article, perhaps without even realising it, in the examples he cited. Having enjoyed the Thai elephant ride myself (not sure why swanning_it thinks that makes him a bogan) I would choose it ahead of either Stonehenge or MASH repeats any day (I can think of many more options than just these two). Likewise for diving the GB Reef. Both are activities I think most people would agree do, in fact, live up to the hype, unlike Stonehenge.
