Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[lovearuba]

Chained Chairs

Hi
I did notice this when I was there last week. It did not seem to be a big deal since the staff are in the area and love to unlock them and set up your chairs with your towels for a tip. I personally think they are trying to prevent non-Marriott folks from using the chairs. It kind of makes sense This is a public beach and since the chairs belong to Marriott, I imagine a lot of folks would just think its okay to use them. I am one of those owners who don't want to share resources with the surf, this seems to be another measure to help ensure that.

I dont kno w if this will cause a mold problem but I'm sure that our maintence fees should have enough in reserves to purchase new chairs..., Only kidding!!! Thought I would add some levity to the discussion.

 

[Eric]

For the record, I own at Surf Club and know it well. Also for the record, many people besides me, think Mark has mishandled this from day one and will get absolutely nowhere with just whinning and no evidence. I actually think he has done alot more harm than good at Ocean Club ,which is a shame.

Eric....yours is the post with no substance..do we really need to nitpic in this fashion....Lets deal with your post in the same way shall we:

"Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts"

First of all tMark hasnt given his opinion on anything. He has simply passed on an email he received. What facts did you want....the ones that say Marriott can do no wrong over and over again. Sorry but you wont get that from many owners of the OC.

"1. Questions were asked that we don't know the nature of, and they were told to ask again offline "

And your point is ? Gee you arent being told everything...too bad so sad...what does this have to do with an opinion? Owners have asked questions, they arent getting answers. Pretty simple...what part of it did you not understand?

"2. Many guest getting towels ( 1 or 2?) said they won't buy in Ocean Club under these circumstances.What did you do, print out 20 pages of TUG for them to read ?"

Like it or not Eric, these issues have been a very hot topic by many at the OC. Although we didnt take our trips this year we have a number of other friends who have and all have told me that this is a constant discussion round the pool , beach, and yes towel hut, whiich by the way over the years(and Im sure not being an owner you wouldnt be aware of) was a general meet and talk place for owners in the early morning. Wouldnt need to print out Tug, people are talking about it at the property.

"3. Surf Club was overbooked. What does that mean, people are sleeping at the pool ?"

No actually they dont sleep at the pool. When it happens(and this wouldnt be the first time, they are usually put up in either the OC or hotel, and visa versa). It also happens when the AC breaks down at the two timeshare properties...but only if you complain about it very loudly...otherwise they leave you in the hot room without AC for the entire week !

"4. chairs to close to each other cause mold "

I didnt know this...guess I learned something new. I also wasnt aware of the chaining of the chairs policy.

"The good news is you will let us know if anything intresting comes up next week ?"

I hope so!

"What, maybe the ice cream will be melted in the onsite store ?"

Well this isnt really something as an owner that would be of interest to me, but obviously since Eric wants to know perhaps Mark you could try to find out for him.



Thanks for passing on the email Mark. It's appreciated by this owner!

 

[Luckybee]

For the record, I own at Surf Club and know it well. Also for the record, many people besides me, think Mark has mishandled this from day one and will get absolutely nowhere with just whinning and no evidence. I actually think he has done alot more harm than good at Ocean Club ,which is a shame.

What "many people" ? The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ? Im not concerned about those "many people". Many owners, and make no mistake there are many, are quite pleased that Mark has taken this thing as far as he has so far amid ludicrous daily critiques here, when many others would have simply rolled over and played dead. Has everything been handled perfectly by Mark ? I dont personally know Mark from Adam, have never spoken with him, and, I'll be the first to say it hasn't been handled perfectly but for different reasons than I suspect that the "many" here might think. Imho too much info was provided here in an effort to get the message out which allowed Marriott to cover their tracks to some extent. But more harm than good...Absolutely not...he has without a doubt provided a great service to the owners which hopefully after all is litigated and the dust settles and perhaps, just perhaps a new board is appointed his actions will be more appreciated.

I guess maybe where you and I may differ, and where I also differ in my opinion from Allen is that I actually hope that at the end of the day Marriott would walk away from the OC. Maybe hope is too strong of a word. Let me say instead that if they continue operating in this way I think "many" of the old owners like us, will consider jumping ship. I would prefer to see changes that would allow me to regain my trust in the OC, and if Marriott wont abide by the needed changes then I would rather seem them out. If that means the potential to devalue the property(which I dont btw see as inevitable) then so be it. When we bought it is true that we did so partially because of the Marriott name. Now that name is meaningless to me, and imho, they are currently the ones who "are doing more harm than good"

 

[Eric]

I would love to see Marriott make the owners happy but what some of the owners want is not realistic. As far as Mark, I am not sure what exactly he has accomplish as of yet. As far as I can see, he has pissed off Marriott to the point where they are playing hardball and now the only way to win is in court which just plain won't happen. I think the state of CA made a better case against OJ than Mark has. As far as leaving the Marriott flag, the damage has been done and most owners would not approve it. Why would Marriott dump Ocean Club ? the HOA has done everything the way they want.
the reality is the owners need Marriott more than Marriott needs the owners at this point.

As far as your first line about "The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ?", me not counted, people like Dave, John , Eric & Sue have made some educated observations and Mark has done nothing in my eyes to help defend his postion.

What "many people" ? The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ? Im not concerned about those "many people". Many owners, and make no mistake there are many, are quite pleased that Mark has taken this thing as far as he has so far amid ludicrous daily critiques here, when many others would have simply rolled over and played dead. Has everything been handled perfectly by Mark ? I dont personally know Mark from Adam, have never spoken with him, and, I'll be the first to say it hasn't been handled perfectly but for different reasons than I suspect that the "many" here might think. Imho too much info was provided here in an effort to get the message out which allowed Marriott to cover their tracks to some extent. But more harm than good...Absolutely not...he has without a doubt provided a great service to the owners which hopefully after all is litigated and the dust settles and perhaps, just perhaps a new board is appointed his actions will be more appreciated.

I guess maybe where you and I may differ, and where I also differ in my opinion from Allen is that I actually hope that at the end of the day Marriott would walk away from the OC. Maybe hope is too strong of a word. Let me say instead that if they continue operating in this way I think "many" of the old owners like us, will consider jumping ship. I would prefer to see changes that would allow me to regain my trust in the OC, and if Marriott wont abide by the needed changes then I would rather seem them out. If that means the potential to devalue the property(which I dont btw see as inevitable) then so be it. When we bought it is true that we did so partially because of the Marriott name. Now that name is meaningless to me, and imho, they are currently the ones who "are doing more harm than good"

 

[Luckybee]

I would love to say Marriott make the owners happy but what some of the owners want is not realistic. As far as Mark, I am not sure what exactly he has accomplish as of yet. As far as I can see, he has pissed off Marriott to the point where they are playing hardball and now the only way to win is in court which just plain won't happen. I think the state of CA made a better case against OJ than Mark has. As far as leaving the Marriott flag, the damage has been done and most owners would not approve it. Why would Marriott dump Ocean Club ? the HOA has done everything the way they want.
the reality is the owners need Marriott more than Marriott needs the owners at this point.

As far as your first line about "The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ?", me not counted, people like Dave, John , Eric & Sue have made some educated observations and Mark has done nothing in my eyes to help defend his postion.

Lets agree to disagree Eric. I say that because quite frankly i disagree with just about everything in your post , other than the fact that Mark has pissed off Marriott. I also agree that you dont see what Mark has accomplished yet Is Marriott playing hardball, absolutely, but where we do disagree is that they were playing hardball long before they had ever heard of Mark. I truly wish that any one of the few critics on this board would take the time to personally speak with Allan or any of the others that he could direct you to speak with. I'd be surprised if the perspective didnt change after that.
As for the chance of success in court, well, lets just say that I learned long ago , to never predict what will happen in a courtroom. So where we disagree here is that based on the portion of info you have you're prepared to state that the owners dont have a chance, whereas I will only say that imho it might be interesting
On the owners needing Marriott, well lets just say it depends on the owner. I've given you my opinion, and I'd be just as happy if they left(probably more so). Im sure for an avid trader then yes that could be a downside,but only if another major didnt step in. Other than that I see no downside to the owners at all, only an upside , that is, no longer having a board controlled completely by Marriott and cronies.

 

[lovearuba]

IWhy would Marriott dump Ocean Club ? the HOA has done everything the way they want.
the reality is the owners need Marriott more than Marriott needs the owners at this point.

As far as your first line about "The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ?", me not counted, people like Dave, John , Eric & Sue have made some educated observations and Mark has done nothing in my eyes to help defend his postion.

You forget what influence the word of mouth has for the reputation of a large corporation like Marriott, dont think this thread isnt affecting them because it is or they wouldnt be trying to influence the folks that signed up. They also would not bother to take the time to post here, but they have.

Marriott needs all of their customers and it is really hard to build trust once its lost and extremely hard to get good customers back. As for educated observations, I'm not sure why you think the observations by folks that disagree with this cause are any more educated than the folks that are involved. I dont see credentials of lawyers involved here and much of the advice provided by some of those so-called educated posters has not worked. What I see is that they are trying to educate themselves on the particulars which is why they are asking so many questions. If this thread serves that purpose as well as the intended purpose that's fine.

 

[ecwinch]

For us the bright light was always Allan and his open communication style. With him running things I never worried about who was minding the store.

Refresh my memory, who was president of the BoD when the decision was made to have a separate mgt staff for the OC? Is that not one of contributing factors to the increase in m/f?

 

[ecwinch]

Eric....yours is the post with no substance..do we really need to nitpic in this fashion....Lets deal with your post in the same way shall we:

"Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts"

First of all tMark hasnt given his opinion on anything. He has simply passed on an email he received. What facts did you want....the ones that say Marriott can do no wrong over and over again. Sorry but you wont get that from many owners of the OC.

I am sorry, but Mark has played this card too many times. Posting some third hand account that is supposedly further proof of owner unrest or the MVCI conspiracy. It is just heresy, nothing more, nothing else.

And I would gladly speak with Allan. But I make decisions based on facts, not emotions. So if the call would be a more of what Allan has posted here or what his proxy has posted, then it would be a waste of time of both parties time. I have no doubt that Allan can speak passionately about the situation at OC, but I am only interested the facts of the case. Not heresy or innuendo, just the facts.

And in his posts, he has been short on that side of the ledger. And the few offered are presented with such bias, it just undermines his creditability.

 

[ecwinch]

You forget what influence the word of mouth has for the reputation of a large corporation like Marriott, dont think this thread isnt affecting them because it is or they wouldnt be trying to influence the folks that signed up. They also would not bother to take the time to post here, but they have.

Marriott needs all of their customers and it is really hard to build trust once its lost and extremely hard to get good customers back. As for educated observations, I'm not sure why you think the observations by folks that disagree with this cause are any more educated than the folks that are involved. I dont see credentials of lawyers involved here and much of the advice provided by some of those so-called educated posters has not worked. What I see is that they are trying to educate themselves on the particulars which is why they are asking so many questions. If this thread serves that purpose as well as the intended purpose that's fine.

True, but only because the one item that DaveM suggested was so poorly handled. I do not think Dave suggested doing it with no regard for the by-laws.

And nothing else was tried. This played out exactly the way Mark intended it to. If you read his early posts, and contrast them with the situation today, you will see he has a knack for self-fulling prophecy. As I noted many posts ago, he predicted on another board exactly where this would end, and it has. Your post even supports that, suggesting that the meaningful advice could only have come from a TUG member who is a lawyer. Do other timeshare owners have to be a lawyer to offer advice on how to deal with the BoD? Based on our experience owning and being involved with timeshares BoD, some of us actually know more than your average lawyer in that regard.

I think one day, you will come to realize that you were only an actor in this play. I am sure many owners appreciate him fighting the battle in the hope that it will bring some relief. This will end one of two ways - current representation will bail once MVCI calls the bluff, or the tide will turn once the BoD has to levy a special assessment to pay mounting legal bills.

And if current representation was previously retained by the BoD under Allan’s tenure, I think this effort will be short-lived. In the US, that would be motion #1 on the defendant’s plan of attack.

But I am neither a lawyer or a OC owner, so I recognize that my opinion matters little in your eyes.

 

[Luckybee]

Actually Ecwich I think what she was saying(at least what I took from it ) was that Mark and the others on the committee are in fact getting competent legal advice(and it isnt from a tug member as far as I know). The naysayers may beg to differ on that but based on the info I have Im not prepared to 2nd guess that advice because I am not a lawyer who specializes in this type of work. Sorry to say Imho it makes far more sense for Mark to follow that advice than the advice he gets here. Im sure if LoveAruba meant something other than that she'll correct me

 

[SueDonJ]

... I truly wish that any one of the few critics on this board would take the time to personally speak with Allan or any of the others that he could direct you to speak with. I'd be surprised if the perspective didnt change after that. ...

We could both probably produce countless friends and family members who would testify to our goodness of character and likable personalities. But after reading everything I've written here, knowing that you have a different perspective than me and that we disagree on most every aspect of this discussion, would you honestly expect that if you talked to me in person then your disagreement with my viewpoint would change?

If the question was turned and asked of me about you, I know I'd say, "Of course not!" And I'd expect the same response from you.

This medium, online message boards, may not be the very best communication method, but it is certainly a valid one, and it is certainly possible to gain an understanding of someone's perspective/opinion by reading here. What I've learned from both Allan's and Mark's direct communications here is that nothing they could say to me in person would change my opinion that they have not served their cause as best they possibly could, that they have actually harmed the cause and indirectly, Allan himself. They would never be able to convince me that Marriott/MVCI/the board should have responded more informally to the ranting and raving before things got so out of hand, because I think that sets a dangerous precedent that would open Marriott to litigation. Or that the actions Marriott has taken since the inception of this thread, as they have been related here, are somehow illegal or not contractually enforceable.

Even IF (and that's a gigantic "IF") Allan was to produce in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence that would prove that Mr. Marriott himself should pay all of the Ocean Club's owners' fees for the next fifteen years as restitution for wrongs, I still wouldn't think that Allan or Mark used honorable or respectable methods to fight a good fight. I'd walk away shaking my head and wondering why they engaged in all this drama, and why I let myself get drawn into what could then be called a stupid game, when the situation could have been resolved almost before it began. But I still wouldn't change my opinion of their actions.

 

[ecwinch]

Actually Ecwich I think what she was saying(at least what I took from it ) was that Mark and the others on the committee are in fact getting competent legal advice(and it isnt from a tug member as far as I know). The naysayers may beg to differ on that but based on the info I have Im not prepared to 2nd guess that advice because I am not a lawyer who specializes in this type of work. Sorry to say Imho it makes far more sense for Mark to follow that advice than the advice he gets here. Im sure if LoveAruba meant something other than that she'll correct me

I absolutely agree that Mark should follow the advice of his legal counsel.

I cannot read the words I highlighted in the same context however, particularly given the last half of the sentence.

 

[Luckybee]

We could both probably produce countless friends and family members who would testify to our goodness of character and likable personalities. But after reading everything I've written here, knowing that you have a different perspective than me and that we disagree on most every aspect of this discussion, would you honestly expect that if you talked to me in person then your disagreement with my viewpoint would change?

If the question was turned and asked of me about you, I know I'd say, "Of course not!" And I'd expect the same response from you.

This medium, online message boards, may not be the very best communication method, but it is certainly a valid one, and it is certainly possible to gain an understanding of someone's perspective/opinion by reading here. What I've learned from both Allan's and Mark's direct communications here is that nothing they could say to me in person would change my opinion that they have not served their cause as best they possibly could, that they have actually harmed the cause and indirectly, Allan himself. They would never be able to convince me that Marriott/MVCI/the board should have responded more informally to the ranting and raving before things got so out of hand, because I think that sets a dangerous precedent that would open Marriott to litigation. Or that the actions Marriott has taken since the inception of this thread, as they have been related here, are somehow illegal or not contractually enforceable.

Even IF (and that's a gigantic "IF") Allan was to produce in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence that would prove that Mr. Marriott himself should pay all of the Ocean Club's owners' fees for the next fifteen years as restitution for wrongs, I still wouldn't think that Allan or Mark used honorable or respectable methods to fight a good fight. I'd walk away shaking my head and wondering why they engaged in all this drama, and why I let myself get drawn into what could then be called a stupid game, when the situation could have been resolved almost before it began. But I still wouldn't change my opinion of their actions.

It has nothing to do with someone being likeable ...rather when one has the opportunity to hear the information from the horses mouth (so to speak) as to various things that have transpired and steps taken( which had nothing to do with Mark and began long before Mark ever got involved)...I dunno, I guess Im just not one to rely on info from a BB. And yes if you were personally involved in an issue that I was interested in, and had first hand knowledge, someone who has seen the radical changes and efforts to cover, I would be more inclined to listen to you than someone who hasnt been involved for years...but I guess we see that differently too...lol.
I must admit i do find it amusing that from Allan you would need the "in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence ", whereas from Marriott and the board of cronies you're prepared to accept anything they throw out .

 

[SueDonJ]

I absolutely agree that Mark should follow the advice of his legal counsel.

It's almost unbelievable that any legal counsel would not strongly advise Mark that he should stop posting here in the manner in which he does. The first rule is, do nothing which may in any way harm your case. The fact that he is still posting here makes me continue to question whether a qualified attorney has been retained.

I cannot read the words I highlighted in the same context however, particularly given the last half of the sentence.

I agree with your interpretation of LoveAruba's post, as well as your response to it.

 

[SueDonJ]

It has nothing to do with someone being likeable ...

Except that I'd be more inclined to completely discount someone's opinion based on the fact that they were UNlikeable, as evidenced by no one coming forward to vouch for their character. Contrast that with me disagreeing with your opinions based on their merit as opposed to yours.

rather when one has the opportunity to hear the information from the horses mouth (so to speak) as to various things that have transpired and steps taken( which had nothing to do with Mark and began long before Mark ever got involved)...I dunno, I guess Im just not one to rely on info from a BB.

Then what purpose does it serve for either Mark (as Allan's proxy) or Allan to write on this message board? Are we to not take them at their word here? That sounds counterproductive.

And yes if you were personally involved in an issue that I was interested in, and had first hand knowledge, someone who has seen the radical changes and efforts to cover, I would be more inclined to listen to you than someone who hasnt been involved for years...but I guess we see that differently too...lol.

Not if what you knew of me from previous dealings made you question why my delivery methods needed to be contentious, you wouldn't. If my first contact with you was rambling and biased and disjointed, you'd wonder what my motive was. That's how I viewed Allan and Mark from what was the beginning of this situation for me, anyway, and that's why I still suspect their delivery.

I must admit i do find it amusing that from Allan you would need the "in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence ", whereas from Marriott and the board of cronies you're prepared to accept anything they throw out .

Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.

 

[ecwinch]

I must admit i do find it amusing that from Allan you would need the "in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence ", whereas from Marriott and the board of cronies you're prepared to accept anything they throw out .

I cannot speak for Sue, but for me it is based on having first hand personal knowledge of mis-representations made by Mark and Allan. It undermines their creditability. Forces me to question everything they say. That happens when you play fast and loose with the truth.

I do not have the level of experience with the MVCI BoD. They might be equally as guilty, I do not know.

So when someone I know is biased says the sky is grey, and someone else says the sky is blue, who am I inclined to believe?

 

[Luckybee]

Finally there is something we can agree on. Ive said for awhile that too much info was being provided on these boards. It is never a good idea when preparing for court to put this kind of info in a public forum.

That said, there are lawyers who, for one reason or another, would disagree !

It's almost unbelievable that any legal counsel would not strongly advise Mark that he should stop posting here in the manner in which he does.

 

[ecwinch]

Finally there is something we can agree on. Ive said for awhile that too much info was being provided on these boards. It is never a good idea when preparing for court to put this kind of info in a public forum.

That said, there are lawyers who, for one reason or another, would disagree !

There are no purple hearts awarded for self-inflicted wounds. No one has made Mark post anything here. If you have reached that conclusion, but the leader of your crusade has not, one has to naturally question why that is so.

Apply the same standard to your leadership, as you have to the BoD whose decisions you are attacking.

 

[Luckybee]

Except that I'd be more inclined to completely discount someone's opinion based on the fact that they were UNlikeable, as evidenced by no one coming forward to vouch for their character. Contrast that with me disagreeing with your opinions based on their merit as opposed to yours.



Then what purpose does it serve for either Mark (as Allan's proxy) or Allan to write on this message board? Are we to not take them at their word here? That sounds counterproductive.



Not if what you knew of me from previous dealings made you question why my delivery methods needed to be contentious, you wouldn't. If my first contact with you was rambling and biased and disjointed, you'd wonder what my motive was. That's how I viewed Allan and Mark from what was the beginning of this situation for me, anyway, and that's why I still suspect their delivery.



Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.

Knowing what I know of the situation, I am confident that Mark is by no means Allans proxy, as you and others continue to refer to him. As I indicated before, these issues arose long before Mark got involved and Allan was already trying repeatedly to deal with them in a less than public manner. I supect,( but one would have to ask Mark), that the reason for posting here, certainly initially, was to get theinfo out to those owners who may not already be aware of the situation. Very few of the owners at the OC are active posters here, and Im not sure that was the best idea but it has accomplished one thing...it certainly has people talking, and has prevented some sales ! Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad one would of course depend on your perspective i suppose.
Ive never known Allan to be rambling and disjointed, and I dont feel that any of his posts or letters were of that variety but I guess we see that differently too. I guess another difference is that you keep blending them together, when in reality they didnt even know each other before this began.
I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation.

 

[Luckybee]

There are no purple hearts awarded for self-inflicted wounds. No one has made Mark post anything here. If you have reached that conclusion, but the leader of your crusade has not, one has to naturally question why that is so.

Apply the same standard to your leadership, as you have to the BoD whose decisions you are attacking.

Whatever gave you the idea that Mark was "my" leadership? I have added my name to his list but Mark is by far not the only person working on these issues. Doesnt mean I dont appreciate his efforts however And Mark is a big boy who doesnt need me to tell him how best to get his message out. Just because I have a different philosophy doesnt mean he has to follow it

 

[SueDonJ]

Finally there is something we can agree on. Ive said for awhile that too much info was being provided on these boards. It is never a good idea when preparing for court to put this kind of info in a public forum.

On the contrary, a public offering of simply the facts could invite others who have been similarly harmed to join a legal effort. That would be a valid reason for an attorney to suggest that various communication mediums be utilized to bolster a case.

It's Mark's manner of posting which hurts this cause - his opinionated, biased, unsubstantiated allegations against, and repeated use of second-hand anonymous sources to slander, Marriott/MVCI/Aruba Ocean Club's BOD. No competent attorney would condone Mark's posts contained herein.

That said, there are lawyers who, for one reason or another, would disagree !

Yes, the incompetent ones.

 

[ecwinch]

Whatever gave you the idea that Mark was "my" leadership? I have added my name to his list but Mark is by far not the only person working on these issues. Doesnt mean I dont appreciate his efforts however And Mark is a big boy who doesnt need me to tell him how best to get his message out. Just because I have a different philosophy doesnt mean he has to follow it

You did not provide him with a proxy to call the special meeting? To vote on your behalf?

 

[Luckybee]

I think you'll find that no one provided Mark with a "proxy" for either situation, as the bylaws make no mention of a proxy being needed to call the meeting, and it certainly wasnt Mark who had the majority of proxies for the general meeting...I dont think he had any...but he'd have to answer that himself.
I also think you would find that only after a special meting was called would proxies then be needed to vote at a meeting....it isnt a one step process imho, and that may be what one of the issues will turn out to be later.

 

[ecwinch]

Knowing what I know of the situation, I am confident that Mark is by no means Allans proxy, as you and others continue to refer to him.

Mark must have found that engineers report on his own. He has already retracted his early statements that Allan suggested the lawsuit.

Your right, I doubt that Allan has not had much influence on Mark's decisions at all.

Oh, yes - I believe in the tooth fairy and that we never landed on the moon.
:rofl:

 

[SueDonJ]

If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.

I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation.

Throughout the discussion you've given no response which amounts to an argument against any of my positions, other than to say that you think it's "silly" for me to contribute anything because I am not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club.

That's fine, it's as valid a reason as any for you to not respond to my particular posts. But now when I asked point-blank for you to produce something I'd written where a supporting explanation wasn't included, you're saying that you discounted all those posts of mine because my stated opinions had no merit?

Well, that's also fine. Except your two reasons are completely different. I don't suppose you'll want to go back and revisit any of those posts to point out exactly what you disagree with?