Oh for the love of Pete ...
Marksue, do you realize that each and every time you copy/paste something from Allan to this thread, you are proving the point that Marriott made when they said that "the owners have a way to correspond to each other and that is through TUG?"
Oh for the love of Pete.....
Very few owners know of this site so how can Marriott even think this is a way to correspond. Will they send mail to all owners notifying them of this site? That’s all we are trying to do is get information out to the owners.
Actually, I post it so you and Eric have all the information you need to bash the concerned owners.
No one is soliciting anything on the beach. All we are doing is handing out cards to owners. We are not soliciting their support or anything else, just telling them if they want information to go to this site. The TS operators and water sport operator are going around and asking people in the chairs under the palapas if they want to do any water sports or look at time share. In fact Marriott was out there soliciting people on the beach to look at their timeshare. Hmmmm how can they do that it is illegal to solicit. Oh right Marriott's interpretation of the rules. One rule for owners another for them.
Sometimes the irrationality is astounding.
You know what? At this point if I was an MAOC owner who has issues with or questions about the continuing actions of this "concerned owners" group, I'd seriously consider hiring my own competent attorney. I'd ask him/her to research any- and everything that might protect me from the costs, in real money as well as damages to the contractual relationship between MVCI and the resort, that the actions (whether indirect or direct) of the members of this so-called "concerned owners" group are causing.
Because obviously, as evidenced by the complete disregard for the laws that do apply and the complete irrational discounting of any dissenting opinions shared by timeshare-savvy people, none of what's occurring now is (if it ever was) about ensuring that Marriott et al be held to abiding by the governing documents and/or laws that pertain to the MAOC resort. I have my own ideas of what's at play here, but regardless, if I was an MAOC owner I would do everything in my power to separate myself from the damages this group has inflicted on all MAOC owners. And I'd do anything possible to try to ensure that the monetary costs could be their sole responsibility.
To question Sue's ethics due to owning stock is a personal attack, the attack the messenger ploy rather than deal with the issues, IMO. We are all stake holders in Marriott to one degree or another and likely most of us have far more risk in timeshares than does any of us in Marriott stock. Anyone who owns next door at the SC or another timeshare in Aruba likely has a larger conflict of interest than does Sue, even if they own at the OC also.Sue,do I understand that you are a Marriott shareholder?
If so, NOW I understand YOUR motive.
Whew,for a second I really thought you believe in what you state.
To question Sue's ethics due to owning stock is a personal attack, the attack the messenger ploy rather than deal with the issues, IMO. We are all stake holders in Marriott to one degree or another and likely most of us have far more risk in timeshares than does any of us in Marriott stock. Anyone who owns next door at the SC or another timeshare in Aruba likely has a larger conflict of interest than does Sue, even if they own at the OC also.
marksue, your interpretation of the events and intent seem pretty far out there from what I can see. I would not hold the same opinions as you on the various aspects of actions by MVCI and the BOD. Actually I'd likely have done much as they have done. Were I in their shoes I'd do everything I could to squash any opposition like a bug in every legal way I could and including ways to increase the oppositions costs as much as possible. I'm curious as to why their actions surprise you as you've put them in a clear situation of you against them with the rest of the owners caught in the middle and footing the bill. ultimately your group will likely pay twice including the direct costs of the legal challenges plus the shared costs of the defense. As I noted previously, I think the only real chance going forward is to get this quickly into the courts and make a full out attempt to prove ALL of the allegations beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't think reasonable doubt will be enough and frankly, I think you're going to have to prove not only affect but intent to be successful enough to justify the effort.
I must say it is entertaining though.
Are you saying people do not have a right to give out cards with the web address on a public beach in Aruba? You are one of the posters that supported the idea of the group to get the contact information to allow then to communicate with other owners weren't you? I don't understand how you can defend the action of Marriott related to solicitation. Is it that you just cannot agree to any actions taken by the owners?
I cant imagine what you think about the numerous unsolicited phone calls we received from the candidates in the MA election. Thank goodness someone was willing to challenge the status quo.
... Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.
You should consult with Mark before you offer any more opinions about how TUG is helping your cause and enabling owners to learn about your group's efforts. Earlier today he tried to disprove Marriott's statement that TUG is one way that owners can correspond to each other.
As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.
... And yes I wouldn't mind sharing in the "liability" of passing said card.
I find it very difficult to believe that such enforcement is possibe nor legal. ...
IMO this is an impossibility to enforce.
... The failure by an occupant to abide by, and comply with, these Plan Rules or the other project governing documents may result in the imposition of fines or other penalties and/or the suspension of such occupant's rights and privileges as an occupant, including a suspension of such Owner's or occupant's use and exchange privileges. ...
Eh, I didn't have to think anything about those calls. We opted in to donotcall.gov several years ago and didn't get any political calls about yesterday's election.
Are you sure you've thought enough about all this to so casually accept that the risk is worth the reward for the owners who are passing the cards on what may be private resort property, against a specific bylaw?
I'm willing to bet that every MVCI resort has a similar penalty for owners who do not adhere to the bylaws. Here's the quote from SurfWatch's governing docs:
That's definitely not a risk I'd take, not without definitive support from a competent legal advisor. Nope, I wouldn't even be willing to assume the risk of advising other owners that they should pass out the cards (which, coincidentally, is a risk that the owners of your website are assuming by putting the suggestion right there on the homepage.)
Consider yourself lucky. Donotcall.gov lists do not apply to politicians or charities.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm
"29. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?
Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of “telemarketing.” Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry."
I was always a risk taker especially if I am told that my constitutional right of free speech is threatened especially in my own home.
I have never read the bylaws nor do I care to read them.
I live my life according to my own moral compass.That's what is right for me.