Living thru Hell Week Aruba right now

[Saintsfanfl]

This PC garbage is such B.S. Cannot even name a specific group that has an actual name? What kind of horse sh-- PC nonsense is that? That shouldn't even be called PC. That is just plain stupid.

I have to agree. Somehow I think if it was a different ethnic or religious group it would be ok to name it. If this were a large Brazilian spring break group would it cause the same name deletions? I seriously doubt it. Society is oversensitive to this particular group due to the history of mankind. It is understandable because it is reality but I don't believe it is right. Such is life.

 

[Ridewithme38]

3 or 4 in the water by themselves with nobody watching? That sounds ok to you? Strong swimmer has nothing to do with it. Anyone can hit their head or have other complications. It's even questionable whether any age should swim completely alone but at 3/4 supervision should be automatic.

Are you REALLY talking about swimming alone? Because i thought this was a time when the Surf Club was overbooked and there are people everywhere. Or do you mean alone as in, YOU didn't know who was supervising the child?

Remember the days when you and I were kids Saints? When i was 3-4 i lived in Grosse Point, I was always wandering the neighborhood, i don't remember it, but my parents freely admit they didn't know which neighbors backyard i was in at anytime. By Kindergarten we had moved to Long Island, my memory is a bit better, i remember waking up in the morning, going out and meeting up with other kids and us all coming back inside when the street lights came on....entire days unsupervised! Somehow i survived!

And before you guys say "That's was the 50's or 40's and things have changed", i'm not that old, Reagan was president through most of elementary school for me

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Are you REALLY talking about swimming alone? Because i thought this was a time when the Surf Club was overbooked and there are people everywhere. Or do you mean alone as in, YOU didn't know who was supervising the child?

Remember the days when you and I were kids Saints? When i was 3-4 i lived in Grosse Point, I was always wandering the neighborhood, i don't remember it, but my parents freely admit they didn't know which neighbors backyard i was in at anytime. By Kindergarten we had moved to Long Island, my memory is a bit better, i remember waking up in the morning, going out and meeting up with other kids and us all coming back inside when the street lights came on....entire days unsupervised! Somehow i survived!

And before you guys say "That's was the 50's or 40's and things have changed", i'm not that old, Reagan was president through most of elementary school for me

I see your point on the swimming. On wondering the neighborhood at 3 or 4 that seems a little young but I grew up in a neighborhood where the houses were not close together and ours was surrounded by woods. I was not out by myself at 3-4 but I was probably around 6-7. Southern Louisiana was and is a bit different than Gross Pointe. We are probably about the same age. I might even be older. I was in 3rd grade when Reagan was elected.

 

[csxjohn]

Are you REALLY talking about swimming alone? ...there are people everywhere. Or do you mean alone as in, YOU didn't know who was supervising the child?

We always used the buddy system when we swam. No one swam alone, that means we did not swim unless we were very close to our "buddy." There could be 100 people in the pool but we were each responsible for knowing our buddy was near by.

I'm sure you've read some of the other threads about drownings and near drownings in resort pools. Many people around but no one watching the kid in trouble.

My grandson turns 4 next month and I can assure you he will not be near the water without adult supervision very near by. Too much can happen very quickly.

 

[HatTrick]

That shouldn't even be called PC. That is just plain stupid.

PS then?

 

[m61376]

3 or 4 in the water by themselves with nobody watching? That sounds ok to you? Strong swimmer has nothing to do with it. Anyone can hit their head or have other complications. It's even questionable whether any age should swim completely alone but at 3/4 supervision should be automatic.

I couldn't agree more. Even if no one was horsing around, it is a pool filled with people on floats, etc., and very easy for a swimmer to go underneath and have problem when coming up for air. Sometimes even adults get momentarily confused under such circumstances, and I don' care how good a swimmer a toddler is, he/she is still a toddler. It is not up to other guests to supervise someone else's children.

 

[sb2313]

I couldn't agree more. Even if no one was horsing around, it is a pool filled with people on floats, etc., and very easy for a swimmer to go underneath and have problem when coming up for air. Sometimes even adults get momentarily confused under such circumstances, and I don' care how good a swimmer a toddler is, he/she is still a toddler. It is not up to other guests to supervise someone else's children.

I have a 3.5 yo& a 2 yo and one of the best parts of any vacation is when they get to swim with others kids; sometimes older kids even take them for a while. But the whole time my wife and/or myself do watch them. Maybe it's my age?(I was born the year Reagan was elected since he's our point of reference today)but it's up to us as parents to watch out own kids, especially around water! While I understand rides example of a neighborhood situation, this is different and we can't rely on others to watch our kids around pools!

 

[m61376]

I have to agree. Somehow I think if it was a different ethnic or religious group it would be ok to name it. If this were a large Brazilian spring break group would it cause the same name deletions? I seriously doubt it. Society is oversensitive to this particular group due to the history of mankind. It is understandable because it is reality but I don't believe it is right. Such is life.

Sadly, it is not just oversensitivity. It is that too many people cannot resist making a more generalized ethnic slur, whether about practices, garb or something else. As I've posted, there hasn't been one thread about this where the conversation hasn't devolved, including this one. I applaud Sue and Denise for promptly removing such dispersions. I would have no problem with identifying the specific group IF others wouldn't add offensive commentary.

Personally, I am embarrassed that religious connections can be made, and that anyone would even think that this type of behavior is representative of the group at large is hurtful, but there are many, including several Tug members, who can't resist making such quips.

Like most here, I am appalled that anyone could be so disrespectful to both the staff and other guests, and agree that it deserves as much negative publicity as needed to get Marriott to take appropriate action. As an owner, I should be able to make a reservation for any week I'd like to go, without fear of my vacation time and money being wasted because of any other inconsiderate guest.

I do think now is a time when the powers that be at Marriott are most apt to listen, since they want the new Ritz next door to be successful. Has anyone down there now checked out the Ritz- and is any of the behavior that is plaguing the other Marriott properties being seen there. And, if not, what are they doing to effectively police the area?

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Sadly, it is not just oversensitivity. It is that too many people cannot resist making a more generalized ethnic slur, whether about practices, garb or something else. As I've posted, there hasn't been one thread about this where the conversation hasn't devolved, including this one. I applaud Sue and Denise for promptly removing such dispersions. I would have no problem with identifying the specific group IF others wouldn't add offensive commentary.

Personally, I am embarrassed that religious connections can be made, and that anyone would even think that this type of behavior is representative of the group at large is hurtful, but there are many, including several Tug members, who can't resist making such quips.

Like most here, I am appalled that anyone could be so disrespectful to both the staff and other guests, and agree that it deserves as much negative publicity as needed to get Marriott to take appropriate action. As an owner, I should be able to make a reservation for any week I'd like to go, without fear of my vacation time and money being wasted because of any other inconsiderate guest.

I do think now is a time when the powers that be at Marriott are most apt to listen, since they want the new Ritz next door to be successful. Has anyone down there now checked out the Ritz- and is any of the behavior that is plaguing the other Marriott properties being seen there. And, if not, what are they doing to effectively police the area?

I can't agree with that. I have not seen any slurs in this thread although maybe some were deleted. I know I used the technically correct, politically correct, and self used ethnic and religious name and it was deleted. It is a religious group so it is either named correctly or it goes unnamed. Apparently it is the latter and I stand by over sensitivity although I concede that it is realistically justified due to history. There are a handful of other groups that would end with the same censorship out of fear of backlash. But the hundreds of other groups that neither have known history nor members to take offense would be left named.

That said I still think any large group that all know each other will end with the same bad behavior reports. When we vacation at a resort we are used to other families. We are not used to a convention setting where our vacation style is the minority. Pick any of a thousand groups taking over a resort and you are going to have the same issues.

 

[psguru]

It's not a religious thing. It just happens to be a certain group of people who share the same religious background.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

It's not a religious thing. It just happens to be a certain group of people who share the same religious background.

Exactly. We are afraid to name the group because we don't want people to think we are attacking ethnicity or religion. But a group of that size could be any group. I don't think there is a single thing any resort can do about it. The nature of a group pulls non group members outside of their comfort zone while on vacation. The only recourse is to avoid the week.

 

[Ridewithme38]

It's not a religious thing. It just happens to be a certain group of people who share the same religious background.

No, it's happens to be a certain group of people who share the same Temple/synagogue. Their religion is secondary, the temple/synagogue is the one that sets up these trips, not the religion. That is the issue we run into, there are hundreds of thousands of people that share that religion and they have nothing to do with this trip.

If you are to name them, name the Temple/Synagogue NOT the religion. The religion has nothing to do with this trip.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

No, it's happens to be a certain group of people who share the same Temple/synagogue. Their religion is secondary, the temple/synagogue is the one that sets up these trips, not the religion. That is the issue we run into, there are hundreds of thousands of people that share that religion and they have nothing to do with this trip.

If you are to name them, name the Temple/Synagogue NOT the religion. The religion has nothing to do with this trip.

This is true.

 

[m61376]

I can't agree with that. I have not seen any slurs in this thread although maybe some were deleted.

Exactly- they were deleted. I know there was at least one snide comment that I saw before it was deleted.

Again, I appreciate the effort the moderators are putting in here. I wish neither the behavior or the resulting commentary didn't necessitate it.

On another, related note- the entire month of January is available for booking with the exception of two Sat., at least for OS rooms at the SC. I have been told by guests in the past that the OC was far worse, since there were many more owners there.

Sadly, I had heard that it was much better the last few years. Seems that's not the case this year though. I wonder if it's because their more experienced staff has been funneled over to the Ritz since late Fall.

Again, I am really curious if there has been any overflow to the Ritz, and, if not, what they are doing to prevent it. I'd like to see the same security at the other Marriott properties.

 

[SueDonJ]

Exactly. We are afraid to name the group because we don't want people to think we are attacking ethnicity or religion. But a group of that size could be any group. I don't think there is a single thing any resort can do about it. The nature of a group pulls non group members outside of their comfort zone while on vacation. The only recourse is to avoid the week.

I don't think that the suggestion to not name the group came out of any fear, but rather out of brainstorming a way to keep the focus of any TUG threads on what the group does instead of who the group is. That's what's important here! That's what folks want to know, so that they can form their own opinion about whether or not they want to immerse themselves in the activity.

Various reports about this situation in Aruba, from all over the web, date all the way back to 2002. [ETA - And now, 1998 according to psguru's post below.] That's a long time for such negativity to be associated with certain Marriott resorts. It's mind-boggling that it continues, especially in this day and age with internet communication. But one of the reasons may be that when the focus turns to the group instead of the actions, communication is shut off for fear of offending sensibilities. It's happened all over the web - just yesterday, the unofficial Aruba Surf Club owners page on Facebook that was mentioned here, tried to put a stop to that conversation. All of the related posts disappeared. Someone else mentioned posting to the official Marriott Facebook pages - forget it, the posts won't clear moderation.

While I've always felt that it should be possible to name the group and still engage in civil conversation here, it simply doesn't happen. All I want is for TUG to be a place where folks can learn about what happens in Aruba sometime in January. I don't want every thread to have to be eventually locked, or the topic be eventually banned, because we can't agree on how best to do that.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Now if we can only get rid of the Boston and New England fans.....

:hysterical:

 

[psguru]

I was at the Ocean Club the week it opened in January of 1998. The group happened to come down a day or so after we got there. We got a hut the first few days then suddenly we couldn't get one anymore. It used to be first come, first served. My nephew was a year old so everyone was up early. At 6am, my brother went down to the beach and not one hut was available. Towels on all of them. Then we see an african-american guy sleeping in one of the chairs. We wake him up to see if he saw all the people come down. He tells us that he's part of the group and they brought him down specifically to get the huts and he sleeps on the beach.

That put an end to free huts.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

I was at the Ocean Club the week it opened in January of 1998. The group happened to come down a day or so after we got there. We got a hut the first few days then suddenly we couldn't get one anymore. It used to be first come, first served. My nephew was a year old so everyone was up early. At 6am, my brother went down to the beach and not one hut was available. Towels on all of them. Then we see an african-american guy sleeping in one of the chairs. We wake him up to see if he saw all the people come down. He tells us that he's part of the group and they brought him down specifically to get the huts and he sleeps on the beach.

That put an end to free huts.

"african-american guy"? Does the race make any difference whatsoever? I guess now I understand why the threads always end in disarray.

 

[indyhorizons]

I was at the Ocean Club the week it opened in January of 1998. The group happened to come down a day or so after we got there. We got a hut the first few days then suddenly we couldn't get one anymore. It used to be first come, first served. My nephew was a year old so everyone was up early. At 6am, my brother went down to the beach and not one hut was available. Towels on all of them. Then we see an african-american guy sleeping in one of the chairs. We wake him up to see if he saw all the people come down. He tells us that he's part of the group and they brought him down specifically to get the huts and he sleeps on the beach.

That put an end to free huts.

What? Is this person a troll? Are we now saying the African American was part of the Jewish group? Or is this a new and different group? Not sure I believe this thread. 5 posts and this is what they post?

 

[SueDonJ]

… I don't think there is a single thing any resort can do about it. ...

I have never understood this, or Marriott's defense that as owners the group has every right to be there doing what they're doing. It's preposterous.

Look through the governing docs for your resorts. There are myriad sections detailing what actions Marriott can take if the various common courtesy rules are not followed. There IS language which supports Marriott not allowing owners the use of their ownership if any owners/guests are negatively affected by others. In drastic cases there are allowances for suspending ownership.

I also don't understand minimizing this group's actions to only common courtesy infractions, "unruly children" or "children swimming without supervision." This group is required to put up a surety bond to cover damages, extra security and cleaning personnel, and compensation that Marriott pays out to owners/guests who can legitimately document that their vacations have been ruined. Do we know of any other situation where a surety bond is required?! No! This isn't a matter of a large group being insular and other owners/guests being made to feel they're outsiders. It's much more than that, and the governing docs do give Marriott the power to stop it. Why they don't is a mystery, although probably their financial gain is a factor.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

I guess I didn't realize it was that bad. I did not realize that they have to be bonded for the week. At least Marriott took that step although if a group has to be bonded that should indicate that maybe they shouldn't be allowed at all. Can the board do anything about it?

 

[indyhorizons]

I have never understood this, or Marriott's defense that as owners the group has every right to be there doing what they're doing. It's preposterous.

Look through the governing docs for your resorts. There are myriad sections detailing what actions Marriott can take if the various common courtesy rules are not followed. There IS language which supports Marriott not allowing owners the use of their ownership if any owners/guests are negatively affected by others. In drastic cases there are allowances for suspending ownership.

I also don't understand minimizing this group's actions to only common courtesy infractions, "unruly children" or "children swimming without supervision." This group is required to put up a surety bond to cover damages, extra security and cleaning personnel, and compensation that Marriott pays out to owners/guests who can legitimately document that their vacations have been ruined. Do we know of any other situation where a surety bond is required?! No! This isn't a matter of a large group being insular and other owners/guests being made to feel they're outsiders. It's much more than that, and the governing docs do give Marriott the power to stop it. Why they don't is a mystery, although probably their financial gain is a factor.

All great and valid points Sue. In fact I believe the key points here are as owners they have the right to use their week. This is where their rights end. And their right to use their week (s) doesn't or shouldn't trump any other owners' rights. I think that is the most basic of points with all of this and Marriotts stand is ridiculous because they are placing one groups needs and desires over all others who happen to be present at the same time. And no amount of compensation unless it is equal to my airfare and accommodations (and what about lost vacation time/days), would be adequate (imho).

 

[psguru]

Not sure how I could have made that story up but i mentioned the man's race to show that he was clearly not part of the group, just a guy from the neighborhood they hired to get the huts.

Trust me, i have a laundry list of things i could say about this group.

 

[Beaglemom3]

I guess I didn't realize it was that bad. I did not realize that they have to be bonded for the week. At least Marriott took that step although if a group has to be bonded that should indicate that maybe they shouldn't be allowed at all. Can the board do anything about it?

Good point.............. I'd love to see the specific language of the damage bond (or just plain damage deposit with terms ?) and if there are annual updates, but of course, these things are confidential, usually.

I was just thnking about the required bond and how it protects Marriott, but doesn't cover ruined vacations for everyone else (unless there is a unique subclause in the bond terms - sure, yeh.....).

 

[WFP]

We know we are new to TUG from a post perspective but we have been here reading since we were investigating the Enrollment into DC. We gained valuable insight for that decision and did enroll days before the June 2010 Date.

We have never stayed in Aruba ourselves but find this information to be invaluable. While we disagree with the mods decision to exclude the group's name, we understand the intent is to prevent derogatory or other inflamed discussion. We would have preferered that those inflamatory items be editid/deleted so that we can better understand the issue.

We hope that a way can be found to continue to share this information with all owner's.

/WFP