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

[modoaruba]

As I am about those that think it is proof of the intent to deceive.

Not deceive but to steer.

 

[modoaruba]

Motive

let's put motive on the table.
My motive-I own 4 weeks.
I just paid quite a bit in fees.
There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
I bought in because of Marriott.
I want Marriott to remain.
I want Marriott to respond.
I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.

I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
I do not follow your rationale at times.
What gain do you expect?
Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.

 

[ecwinch]

let's put motive on the table.
My motive-I own 4 weeks.
I just paid quite a bit in fees.
There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
I bought in because of Marriott.
I want Marriott to remain.
I want Marriott to respond.
I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.

I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
I do not follow your rationale at times.
What gain do you expect?
Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.

Do you remember that show Green Acres? The part where Eddie Albert starts making a speech and you hear patriotic music in the background. Ok - cue sound....

I am here on principle. I know an evil developer when I see one, and it is not MVCI.

I see the majority of what the crusaders do here as an attempt to "steer" opinion in their direction. Otherwise they would not have picked TUG as the platform for this crusade, nor made this the longest running thread on TUG.

I see a need for someone to balance their viewpoint, with a more moderate one.

Now we have been at this for a long time. I have asked a number of salient questions, without many answers. I get speeches in return. Well shut me with facts, not opinions.

I also am dismayed that some people can have an opinion so strong, that it allows them to ignore certain key facts that do not support what they are saying.

If they simply offered a fair and balance report, without injecting their bias. I would not be here at all.

ps. I am also involved in three other threads where I do not own. There I am trying to help the owners fight a developer that is abusing the system. I know the difference in regard to MVCI.

 

[Dean]

Also, speaking of Marriott maintaining privacy, when we were at the sales presentation when we bought our MAO week, I specifically remember being handed a binder that listed the names & addresses of the MAO owners. It was a sales tactic "look at all the owners in your area". I remember looking up towns in the 4 states we had lived in. They even left us alone with the binder. I could have torn out as many pages as I had wanted to & taken them with me.

They get permission to list those people.

let's put motive on the table.
My motive-I own 4 weeks.
I just paid quite a bit in fees.
There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
I bought in because of Marriott.
I want Marriott to remain.
I want Marriott to respond.
I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.

I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
I do not follow your rationale at times.
What gain do you expect?
Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.

An thus I think we're down to the fundamental difference, those that are ready (for whatever reason) to assume the worst about Marriott and accept the accusations as the sole facts and those that are unwilling to accept the worst case scenario and the accusations at face value without more proof. I have seen NO ONE that is simply saying Marriott all the way. Carried a step further, those of use who have been willing to look at both sides in an objective way have been either accused of not mattering because they don't own there or as idiots because they don't take the accusations as fact. In addition, many of us have pointed out that even it the accusation about the roof are totally true, Marriott has offered to pay roughly half of a depreciating asset, very fair in my book. And some of us have pointed out the obvious, if you truly believe the worst case scenario why would you want to own at this resort, or any Marriott for that matter. IMO, the core ethics of the BOD and MVCI have been questioned and insulted AND the average member there has likely been hurt by the actions at hand rather than helped.

 

[Luckybee]

Do you remember that show Green Acres? The part where Eddie Albert starts making a speech and you hear patriotic music in the background. Ok - cue sound....

I am here on principle. I know an evil developer when I see one, and it is not MVCI.

I see the majority of what the crusaders do here as an attempt to "steer" opinion in their direction. Otherwise they would not have picked TUG as the platform for this crusade, nor made this the longest running thread on TUG.

I see a need for someone to balance their viewpoint, with a more moderate one.

Now we have been at this for a long time. I have asked a number of salient questions, without many answers. I get speeches in return. Well shut me with facts, not opinions.

I also am dismayed that some people can have an opinion so strong, that it allows them to ignore certain key facts that do not support what they are saying.

If they simply offered a fair and balance report, without injecting their bias. I would not be here at all.

ps. I am also involved in three other threads where I do not own. There I am trying to help the owners fight a developer that is abusing the system. I know the difference in regard to MVCI.

Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me. As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?

I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.

 

[ecwinch]

Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me. As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?

I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.

Indulge me. Give me at least two facts that support your position. Not two opinions, two facts. Something like:

"Here is my e-mail from X, asking for financial reports. Here is my followup. Never received an answer of any kind."

Something I can either see or independently verify. Not something like this letter, where I have to draw a conclusion.

That might be the difference between you and I, I can be convinced if there is evidence. Ask Mark how much support I showed him when it was first reported that MVCI was rejecting the Special Meeting request.

 

[lovearuba]

the thread is long because...

Do you remember that show Green Acres? The part where Eddie Albert starts making a speech and you hear patriotic music in the background. Ok - cue sound....

I am here on principle. I know an evil developer when I see one, and it is not MVCI.

I see the majority of what the crusaders do here as an attempt to "steer" opinion in their direction. Otherwise they would not have picked TUG as the platform for this crusade, nor made this the longest running thread on TUG.

I see a need for someone to balance their viewpoint, with a more moderate one.

Now we have been at this for a long time. I have asked a number of salient questions, without many answers. I get speeches in return. Well shut me with facts, not opinions.

I also am dismayed that some people can have an opinion so strong, that it allows them to ignore certain key facts that do not support what they are saying.

If they simply offered a fair and balance report, without injecting their bias. I would not be here at all.

ps. I am also involved in three other threads where I do not own. There I am trying to help the owners fight a developer that is abusing the system. I know the difference in regard to MVCI.

The thread is so long because you and others that are not owners continue to post to it. If you didnt spend so much time it would be pages and pages shorter. The only information that the crusaders would post would be updates and responses to the non-owners who continue to ask questions and justifications. You are one of the most active posters. Thanks for keeping it open we truly appreciate your support.

 

[ecwinch]

The thread is so long because you and others that are not owners continue to post to it. If you didnt spend so much time it would be pages and pages shorter. The only information that the crusaders would post would be updates and responses to the non-owners who continue to ask questions and justifications. You are one of the most active posters. Thanks for keeping it open we truly appreciate your support.

Your welcome, I am here to help.

 

[SueDonJ]

Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me. As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?

I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.

I don't know. I suppose what some people would call, "arguing," others would call, "countering." Just because the offered viewpoint differs from the original statements, doesn't make it automatically a contentious argument. That's simply how a discussion works - one person says one thing, another person offers another view. I just don't get the brouhaha over non-owners writing here to say that they can understand the justification for some of Marriott's/MVCI's actions and/or responses to this group. In some cases that viewpoint is more correct than the owners group's.

For one example: Mark posted his opinion that the BOD was trying to squash owners' rights incorrectly by referencing "an Aruban law" when it sent him a denial letter in response to his "petition" for a special meeting to recall members of the BOD. The only "fact" that was in his statements about that issue was that his request was denied. It turned out that "an Aruban law" was in no way connected to the "fact" that he submitted his "petition" in an incorrect form. As much as some folks want to believe that it would be okay for Marriott/MVCI to circumvent proper legal procedure in order to placate this owners group, the "fact" is that they can't. They can't, and the group can't. Legal requirements, as much as some want to dismiss or trivialize them, must be followed if any decisions here are to be binding.

This is the sort of information that is being dissected here by the non-owners, not the "Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is always-always-always correct and don't you forget it!" mindset that you attribute to us. Whether it's realized or not, this concerned owners group could be strengthened by considering seriously some of what the non-owners contribute here.

 

[SueDonJ]

She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.

I do get it, Modo. You think that the wording of the letter was deliberately crafted to mislead the readers into thinking that the owner who made the request for their personal information would use it nefariously. And you think that those of us who "saw" that nefariousness were led to see it, rather than thinking of it on our own.

Would it make any difference if I said that because of us being bombarded with threats of fraud/identity theft everywhere we turn, most people would "see" that nefariousness in even the simplest letter that the BOD could have crafted? For example, I'd see it in this:

"We have received a request from an owner to release your personal information to him/her, including your name and address, so that s/he can contact you directly with information that s/he considers pertinent to all owners."

If I received that, my response (and I know Don's response!) would still be, "No way," with an attempt to get further information about the issue from the resort GM and/or MVCI's officers.

And again, I would in no way expect the BOD to include in the letter any information whatsoever that would make it easier for the person requesting the owners' list to state his position. None. That owner is an adversary of the BOD. Would you expect that owner to make the BOD's position more clear to other owners?

 

[SueDonJ]

let's put motive on the table.
My motive-I own 4 weeks.
I just paid quite a bit in fees.
There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
I bought in because of Marriott.
I want Marriott to remain.
I want Marriott to respond.
I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.

I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
I do not follow your rationale at times.
What gain do you expect?
Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.

Hmmmm. Motive? I don't think I have a motive. One day I stumbled into this thread and it interested me in the same way that most every thread on this Marriott board interests me. I started reading and thinking about responses so often that I just joined in the discussion. Easy as that, with no ulterior motive at all.

One thought that's rattling around - how much of a good purpose could this thread serve if all of the posts were offered by members of the "concerned owners" group, with absolutely no contest to any of the information contained in those posts? Especially when you consider that some of the information from those members has been flat-out incorrect, nevermind written with a bias against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD?

This group has some legitimacy, no doubt, but it has not performed actions as well as it could have in some instances. (That's not meant as an insult; please don't take it as one.) Why is it harmful for non-owners to point that out, especially as they are at the same time pointing out other possible solutions to the issues here?

 

[lovearuba]

Constructive recommendations

Hmmmm. Motive? I don't think I have a motive. One day I stumbled into this thread and it interested me in the same way that most every thread on this Marriott board interests me. I started reading and thinking about responses so often that I just joined in the discussion. Easy as that, with no ulterior motive at all.

One thought that's rattling around - how much of a good purpose could this thread serve if all of the posts were offered by members of the "concerned owners" group, with absolutely no contest to any of the information contained in those posts? Especially when you consider that some of the information from those members has been flat-out incorrect, nevermind written with a bias against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD?

This group has some legitimacy, no doubt, but it has not performed actions as well as it could have in some instances. (That's not meant as an insult; please don't take it as one.) Why is it harmful for non-owners to point that out, especially as they are at the same time pointing out other possible solutions to the issues here?

Sue, I spoke with Allan the other day and he welcomes Eric and you to contact him directly if you think you have better options than the ones already being pursued.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue, I spoke with Allan the other day and he welcomes Eric and you to contact him directly if you think you have better options than the ones already being pursued.

I appreciate that offer, I do, but how can I make any suggestion of options that are better than what's being pursued, when I don't know what's being pursued? I'm not being facetious here; just take a look at the posting history of all of the players here.

What I've seen throughout this thread is that Mark posts his version of something that's been done already in a posting style which is (deliberately?) inflammatory with just enough information to rile up the owners, without actually giving concrete details about what has been done already, and then the rest of us discuss the "what ifs" as they could be related to what he's posted, which leads to a discovery of something closer to the truth than what he'd posted previously. That sounds very convoluted and it is, I agree, but it's exactly what happened with that failed petition submission as well as other actions Mark has taken.

Now if Mark was to instead post his idea of steps that he believes can be taken to protect his and the other owners' interests, then the rest of us can dissect and suggest to our hearts' content in order to flesh out the best-possible-scenario actions. Or if he was to simply ask what the rest of us, as MVCI owners, would do if we were in your situation (and actually be open to the responses rather than think they are offered simply to be contentious,) then it's possible that we non-owners would feel that our input is welcomed. That attitude, in my opinion, hasn't come across in any of his posts.

 

[ecwinch]

I appreciate that offer, I do, but how can I make any suggestion of options that are better than what's being pursued, when I don't know what's being pursued? I'm not being facetious here; just take a look at the posting history of all of the players here.

What I've seen throughout this thread is that Mark posts his version of something that's been done already in a posting style which is (deliberately?) inflammatory with just enough information to rile up the owners, without actually giving concrete details about what has been done already, and then the rest of us discuss the "what ifs" as they could be related to what he's posted, which leads to a discovery of something closer to the truth than what he'd posted previously. That sounds very convoluted and it is, I agree, but it's exactly what happened with that failed petition submission as well as other actions Mark has taken.

Now if Mark was to instead post his idea of steps that he believes can be taken to protect his and the other owners' interests, then the rest of us can dissect and suggest to our hearts' content in order to flesh out the best-possible-scenario actions. Or if he was to simply ask what the rest of us, as MVCI owners, would do if we were in your situation (and actually be open to the responses rather than think they are offered simply to be contentious,) then it's possible that we non-owners would feel that our input is welcomed. That attitude, in my opinion, hasn't come across in any of his posts.

Word.......

 

[SueDonJ]

This group has some legitimacy, no doubt, but it has not performed actions as well as it could have in some instances. (That's not meant as an insult; please don't take it as one.) Why is it harmful for non-owners to point that out, especially as they are at the same time pointing out other possible solutions to the issues here?

Sue, I spoke with Allan the other day and he welcomes Eric and you to contact him directly if you think you have better options than the ones already being pursued.

That last post from me was meant to be vague and applied to this entire thread. This one is specific to the failed petition submission.

Several non-owners have suggested that the request for a special meeting should be resubmitted by Mark in its proper form, meaning that your group should make an effort to get the signatures of the owners whose names were on Mark's list, onto a petition which states, "I agree with the request for a special meeting in order to recall members of the BOD, and want my name to be counted among the 10% requirement necessary to call such a meeting" (or whatever language is approved by a qualified attorney.) If that means that your attorney suggests the wording and an email goes out to every name on that list directing each of you to submit by certified mail a signed statement of same to the one correct address on your own dime, then that's what you have to do. Or, if your attorney suggests that Mark collects all of the statements from each of you and submits them all together in one package, then that's what it will take. The point being, there are enough concerned owners to satisfy the bylaw requirement; if you take steps to satisfy the legal requirements, too, then you'll be on your way to an action which is your right by virtue of the bylaws.

Of course, that would mean that the members of your group would have to acknowledge 1) that Mark's submission was not in its proper form, and 2) that MVCI/the BOD did not deny your bylaw rights, but rather your incorrect submission. Neither of those admissions has been made by Mark; in fact, he insists still (as far as we know, because he hasn't posted differently) that MVCI/the BOD wrongly infringed on owner rights.

The only reason I can think of that a correct submission to the BOD has been replaced by the request for all owners' names and addresses, is because Mark/Allan want to increase the numbers of owners who join in to the cause. Perhaps because the attempt will be made to not only request the special meeting but also to increase the number of concerned owners who will actually vote against MVCI/the BOD? That makes some sense especially following the last vote results. But again, without Mark offering the details of why he is taking certain actions, we're left to guess.

 

[ecwinch]

The only reason I can think of that a correct submission to the BOD has been replaced by the request for all owners' names and addresses, is because Mark/Allan want to increase the numbers of owners who join in to the cause. Perhaps because the attempt will be made to not only request the special meeting but also to increase the number of concerned owners who will actually vote against MVCI/the BOD? That makes some sense especially following the last vote results. But again, without Mark offering the details of why he is taking certain actions, we're left to guess.

Word.......

 

[SueDonJ]

The only reason I can think of that a correct submission to the BOD has been replaced by the request for all owners' names and addresses, is because Mark/Allan want to increase the numbers of owners who join in to the cause. Perhaps because the attempt will be made to not only request the special meeting but also to increase the number of concerned owners who will actually vote against MVCI/the BOD? That makes some sense especially following the last vote results. But again, without Mark offering the details of why he is taking certain actions, we're left to guess.

Word.......

Well, if that is the reason, I hope that somebody qualified has reviewed the MAOC documents to determine exactly what the number of votes needed to overcome MVCI's "B" votes would be. Because if the MAOC setup is the same as that at Shadow Ridge (again, the only resort's governing documents that we've been able to access electronically,) then the number of "B" votes held by MAOC isn't a set number, but rather one that's subject to a certain formula as stipulated in the documents taking into account several factors.

 

[ecwinch]

Well, if that is the reason, I hope that somebody qualified has reviewed the MAOC documents to determine exactly what the number of votes needed to overcome MVCI's "B" votes would be. Because if the MAOC setup is the same as that at Shadow Ridge (again, the only resort's governing documents that we've been able to access electronically,) then the number of "B" votes held by MAOC isn't a set number, but rather one that's subject to a certain formula as stipulated in the documents taking into account several factors.

Sue, I think you might be posting to yourself.

Early in the crusade I asked for someone to provide me with a copy of the by-laws so that I might be able to assist in that regard. Apparently the by-laws are a small book with a lot of pages.

And I would not read a lot into Love's post that Allan is open to suggestions on alternative solutions to this problem. The crusaders have all the answers and have no need of input from non-owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue, I think you might be posting to yourself.

Eh, that's no different than what they tell me here when they hear me talking and don't see anyone around. What you and they don't understand is, my dawg is always by my side and he understands every word I say/write.

 

[lovearuba]

Staying alive

Eh, that's no different than what they tell me here when they hear me talking and don't see anyone around. What you and they don't understand is, my dawg is always by my side and he understands every word I say/write.

Sue, we know you like to post and you opened this thread back up. It was not really showing on the first page until you resurfaced it by creating numerous other posts. I gave you and Eric the option to speak with Allan and you continue to not what to do that, I guess you dont want to really hear a balanced view or make any constructive criticism. If you did you would take him up on his offer.

 

[Zac495]

Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me. As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?

I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.

I read this thread every day. Mark helped me know the facts - the simple facts - fees up to 1700 and big SA. I sold. Thanks, Mark.

All the other stuff? It surprises me that it's caused such an angry stir. I guess I'm just a simple person (though most who know me would disagree) - to me the fact that Marriott raised the fees from about 11 to about 17 in one year plus added the SA for 2 years was a terrible thing to do in this economy.

I don't know about Allen and roof and other things - I don't know.

More simple stuff - I love Marriott's quality over other timeshares. I'll rent Aruba every 4 years or so for sure. Bet I get a summer month for about 2K but I don't have to worry about fees going up more.

 

[Dean]

I read this thread every day. Mark helped me know the facts - the simple facts - fees up to 1700 and big SA. I sold. Thanks, Mark.

You have plenty of ways to know about the increase and SA without this thread. I'm not simple, but I do swing between philosophical and practical on such matters depending on the specifics at hand. Fees went up because costs went up. The SA was in part related to unexpected costs. They have no choice but to either charge owners the actual costs OR to let the resort suffer and postpone certain maint issues. Or they could compromise like Beachplace tried to do and Marriott wouldn't let them, Marriott was in the right in that situation IMO. I respect that you made a judgement and acted on it and it likely was the best choice. I made the decision up front NOT to buy there largely for the reasons you sold.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue, we know you like to post and you opened this thread back up. It was not really showing on the first page until you resurfaced it by creating numerous other posts. I gave you and Eric the option to speak with Allan and you continue to not what to do that, I guess you dont want to really hear a balanced view or make any constructive criticism. If you did you would take him up on his offer.

I opened it back up because after being away for the weekend, there were new posts that I hadn't seen yet. And yes, I like to post, in this thread and a few others that interest me.

What is the difference between Mark or Allan reading constructive criticism here (from anyone who's participating) and them reading it in a private email or hearing it on the telephone? If they are receptive to the criticism, then the medium is not going to make a difference. And I'm not going to say anything different elsewhere than what I write here, that's for sure.

I'm not sure I get the, "you don't want to really hear a balanced view" thing, though. I do, but not in a private conversation. That lends a certain "mystery" to the issue that I don't think is constructive. If Mark and Allan are correct, there should be no worries about what they post publicly.

 

[modoaruba]

I do get it, Modo. You think that the wording of the letter was deliberately crafted to mislead the readers into thinking that the owner who made the request for their personal information would use it nefariously. And you think that those of us who "saw" that nefariousness were led to see it, rather than thinking of it on our own.

Would it make any difference if I said that because of us being bombarded with threats of fraud/identity theft everywhere we turn, most people would "see" that nefariousness in even the simplest letter that the BOD could have crafted? For example, I'd see it in this:

"We have received a request from an owner to release your personal information to him/her, including your name and address, so that s/he can contact you directly with information that s/he considers pertinent to all owners."

If I received that, my response (and I know Don's response!) would still be, "No way," with an attempt to get further information about the issue from the resort GM and/or MVCI's officers.

And again, I would in no way expect the BOD to include in the letter any information whatsoever that would make it easier for the person requesting the owners' list to state his position. None. That owner is an adversary of the BOD. Would you expect that owner to make the BOD's position more clear to other owners?

Yes I do believe the letter was deliberately crafted.You said yourself that you would expect the BOD to not include info to make it easier for the reader.
You just compromised your own thoughts.
If the list gets out(those of you who suffer from paranoia),the most harm it can do is get you more junk mail(which I sincerely doubt).
You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.
Cut me a break.
Again, what IS your motive here?
Either you like confrontations due to your nature or you are the Trojan horse as I stated before working with Marriott.

 

[Luckybee]

I opened it back up because after being away for the weekend, there were new posts that I hadn't seen yet. And yes, I like to post, in this thread and a few others that interest me.

What is the difference between Mark or Allan reading constructive criticism here (from anyone who's participating) and them reading it in a private email or hearing it on the telephone? If they are receptive to the criticism, then the medium is not going to make a difference. And I'm not going to say anything different elsewhere than what I write here, that's for sure.

I'm not sure I get the, "you don't want to really hear a balanced view" thing, though. I do, but not in a private conversation. That lends a certain "mystery" to the issue that I don't think is constructive. If Mark and Allan are correct, there should be no worries about what they post publicly.

Yep LoveAruba is certainly correct. Repeatedly Mark and others involved have been advised(both on the board and off the board) NOT to post various things on this board regarding strategy, evidence, etc. esp if there is the possibility that this may end up in court. I can also think of a myriad of others reasons why some things are better left off the board ! This isnt the first time that speaking to Allan has been suggested, yet strangely, those who seem the most interested in stirring the pot have no interest in doing anything other than stirring the pot ie :contacting him.