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

[Zac495]

2000!

 

[ecwinch]

As an owner at MOC I for one dont think that Mark needs to show anyone here anything nor imho should he. The owners are who count here ! What he chooses to do is up to him. I have a hard time understanding what purpose is served by providing anyone here with the bylaws, documents , copies of correspondence, reports or any other material that may later be evidence so that it can continually be ripped apart by those who have no interest in the property. Why not simply continue with the steps already in play and see what the results are?

In my reply I already predicted what the response would be. Thanks for proving my point. And I thought you were knowledgeable about the law.

The only purpose that is served is in proving the statements that have been made. Now if the proof does not exist or would not withstand objective review, it just validates the statements made that this will lead to nowhere. For, in the absence of proof, the allegations will always be just that - "allegations".

But I think it speaks volumes about the real purpose of this crusade. And it makes me wonder how many of the crusaders have seen the proof in question, for I find it funny all the excuses that are offered when proof is requested. You would think it would be a simple thing. Particularly from a group that is asking for transparency and accountability.

 

[lovearuba]

Ditto

As an owner at MOC I for one dont think that Mark needs to show anyone here anything nor imho should he. The owners are who count here ! What he chooses to do is up to him. I have a hard time understanding what purpose is served by providing anyone here with the bylaws, documents , copies of correspondence, reports or any other material that may later be evidence so that it can continually be ripped apart by those who have no interest in the property. Why not simply continue with the steps already in play and see what the results are?

Anything worth fighting for is usually takes opposition first.

 

[ecwinch]

Anything worth fighting for is usually takes opposition first.

I do not disagree. But if you start out talking about a lawsuit, then I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So lets not be disingenuous and suggest that non-judicial methods have been given a real chance.

 

[modoaruba]

stalemate or bust?

what lies in the balance?
On one side,assuming the group is correct,negative advertisement of your own property,defame Marriott,create ill feelings between Marriott,staff and owners,possibly cost owners more money,have the satisfaction of being able to say they were right.Will those owners feel comfortable with their vacation.

On the other side, if the group is proven wrong,nothng changes from the above.

Think about it.

Maybe we ought to look at cutting our losses short and trying to have a private meeting of both sides. We have representatives of both sides meet.Maybe someone has a better idea. I'm just throwing it out there.

I feel that wether the group "wins" or "looses",it can't win.

Call it a stalemate or go bust.

 

[Luckybee]

I do not disagree. But if you start out talking about a lawsuit, then I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So lets not be disingenuous and suggest that non-judicial methods have been given a real chance.

I dont think either LoveAruba or I "suggested" anything . I know all I "suggested" was that it was my fervent hope that Mark nor anyone else on the "committee" of concerned owners chose to not share the materials etc on this board since imho it would serve no purpose. I would prefer as I indicated to see how the whole thing pans out elsewhere.

 

[ecwinch]

I dont think either LoveAruba or I "suggested" anything . I know all I "suggested" was that it was my fervent hope that Mark nor anyone else on the "committee" of concerned owners chose to not share the materials etc on this board since imho it would serve no purpose. I would prefer as I indicated to see how the whole thing pans out elsewhere.

But what do you stand to lose by sharing the information? I think I am noticing a pattern here. This is like having a discussion with a five-year old child that refuses to show you what he has behind his back.

Love asked that I contact Allan, which I did. But I ask for something relatively small and easy to do, and this is the response?

And I am asking that it be posted on the board as you indicate. Mark has my e-mail, send me the proof. What are you afraid of? Why are so opposed to this occurring?

Again, it seems like in your mind, that Transparency and Accountability are one way streets.

 

[Luckybee]

But what do you stand to lose by sharing the information? I think I am noticing a pattern here. This is like having a discussion with a five-year old child that refuses to show you what he has behind his back.

Love asked that I contact Allan, which I did. But I ask for something relatively small and easy to do, and this is the response?

And I am asking that it be posted on the board as you indicate. Mark has my e-mail, send me the proof. What are you afraid of? Why are so opposed to this occurring?

Again, it seems like in your mind, that Transparency and Accountability are one way streets.

Perhaps I have misunderstood. Maybe you are an owner at MOC. Or perhaps you misunderstood me. As I said (now for about the 10th time). I have yet to see any reason why any info should be shared on this board since it serves no purpose other than to provide fodder for amusement. I dont believe that Mark would ever be given a fair shake on this board no matter what he did(expect perhaps if he admitted he was wrong and Marriott is wonderful).

Transparency and Accountability have nothing to do with this message board. I dont recall anyone from the concerned owners group, or anyone else for that matter asking that the tug mesage boards have transparency and accountability...lol.
I repeat once again I would prefer Mark not send you or any other non owner anything. It is just my opinion, and I have heard all the supposed "reasons" why non owners have posted but it simply doesnt ring true to me. Call me paranoid, I quite frankly dont care. I have absolutely no faith in anyone "assisting" who has made it abundantly clear from the very beginning where they stand. As I said before, Mark will do as he chooses but I see absolutely nothing to be gained by it. I would prefer that things follow their course.

I agree that it is like a discussion with a 5 year old....one who wishes to play but was never in the game to begin with !

 

[ecwinch]

I repeat once again I would prefer Mark not send you or any other non owner anything.

The purpose is serves is to silent the critics. You complain on why we criticize, but you fail to take a real simple step to answer us. Just like you accuse the AOC board of.

So do not complain when we continue to post this forum. Mark chose to have this discussion in a public forum in order to solicit the widest possible forum to air his complaints and to bring pressure on Marriott. Most other concerned owner groups form and then move to a private venue to communicate with each other. Yet this group has continued to post to TUG. One has to wonder what why that is, if not to bring public attention and force MVCI to address their issues and seek resolution to avoid bad "press". So if your want to do that, then you need address the public concerns that are voiced by non-owners.

Again, I have not asked that Mark post any of his information on this forum. I have asked that he send his communication with the Board to me by e-mail. You keep suggesting that I want it posted to the forum.

I am starting to think that if you are a lawyer, then your license to practice law might have come from a box of Fruit Loops. Maybe a Captain Crunch. But perhaps that is why you phrased your comment on the law the way you did.

 

[Luckybee]

The purpose is serves is to silent the critics. You complain on why we criticize, but you fail to take a real simple step to answer us. Just like you accuse the AOC board of.

So do not complain when we continue to post this forum. Mark chose to have this discussion in a public forum in order to solicit the widest possible forum to air his complaints and to bring pressure on Marriott. Most other concerned owner groups form and then move to a private venue to communicate with each other. Yet this group has continued to post to TUG. One has to wonder what why that is, if not to bring public attention and force MVCI to address their issues and seek resolution to avoid bad "press". So if your want to do that, then you need address the public concerns that are voiced by non-owners.

Again, I have not asked that Mark post any of his information on this forum. I have asked that he send his communication with the Board to me by e-mail. You keep suggesting that I want it posted to the forum.

I am starting to think that if you are a lawyer, then your license to practice law might have come from a box of Fruit Loops. Maybe a Captain Crunch. But perhaps that is why you phrased your comment on the law the way you did.

I personally would be happier if there was a private venue for this for owners at the Ocean Club only.
The only reason I have continued to post is because I cannot stand by and abide by the downright nasty , sarcastic, and insulting comments made by you and a couple of others towards Mark and his groups efforts when they have taken the action they have taken in order to help the rest of the owners. Agree or disagree with the action imho he has been subjected to a ridiculous amount of abuse from you and your cronies. It has offended me greatly and I dont even know the man.
If you wish to trade credentials feel free to contact me through private messages and I'll be happy to show you mine if you show me yours. You have completely reinforced exactly why I have the opinion I do. Your sarcasm imho is why I would prefer that Mark and the others share absolutely nothing with you. Quite frankly your hypocrisy is unbearable. You have the nerve to comment to Mark that he is making this personal and you make comments like this one then later hide behind " just kidding" But again ...just my opinion !

 

[ecwinch]

I personally would be happier if there was a private venue for this for owners at the Ocean Club only.
The only reason I have continued to post is because I cannot stand by and abide by the downright nasty , sarcastic, and insulting comments made by you and a couple of others towards Mark and his groups efforts when they have taken the action they have taken in order to help the rest of the owners. Agree or disagree with the action imho he has been subjected to a ridiculous amount of abuse from you and your cronies. It has offended me greatly and I dont even know the man.
If you wish to trade credentials feel free to contact me through private messages and I'll be happy to show you mine if you show me yours. You have completely reinforced exactly why I have the opinion I do. Your sarcasm imho is why I would prefer that Mark and the others share absolutely nothing with you. Quite frankly your hypocrisy is unbearable. You have the nerve to comment to Mark that he is making this personal and you make comments like this one then later hide behind " just kidding" But again ...just my opinion !

I do notice that you only have a problem when the comments are against the side you have a vested interest in. I did not notice that you felt compelled to comment when Mark made a completely personal slam on Eric or Sue.

I do not hide behind "just kidding". I made one remark to Love in anger that I apologized for. In terms of being sarcastic, I plead no defense. But I am not exactly the Lone Ranger in that department. But my posts are not attacks on Mark's person, they are expressions of disagreement with his crusade. They represent my opinion. I have not called anyone in this thread "clueless" or "stupid" or a "marriott spy" or that they worship MVCI.

And my characterization of this crusade is tame compared to Mark's characterizations of the AOC Board or his defamation of MVCI. If you live by the sword, then you die by the sword. I was not the first to engage in such conduct.

 

[Luckybee]

I do notice that you only have a problem when the comments are against the side you have a vested interest in. I did not notice that you felt compelled to comment when Mark made a completely personal slam on Eric or Sue.

I do not hide behind "just kidding". I made one remark to Love in anger that I apologized for. In terms of being sarcastic, I plead no defense. But I am not exactly the Lone Ranger in that department. But my posts are not attacks on Mark's person, they are expressions of disagreement with his crusade. The represent my opinion. I have not called anyone in this thread "clueless" or "stupid" or a "marriott spy" or that they worship MVCI.

And my characterization of this crusade is tame compared to Mark's characterizations of the AOC Board or his defamation of MVCI. If you live by the sword, then you die by the sword. I was not the first to engage in such conduct.

Priceless....you say once again tht the comments you make are not personal....what do you call the comments in relation to my legal crededentials then ?

What has Mark's opinion towards Marriott or the board have to do with you that you feel the need to defend either? Never mmind...Im sure I can already see the answer coming. Still makes no sense to me....but once again...round and round and round and round.....

 

[ecwinch]

Priceless....you say once again tht the comments you make are not personal....what do you call the comments in relation to my legal crededentials then ?

What has Mark's opinion towards Marriott or the board have to do with you that you feel the need to defend either? Never mmind...Im sure I can already see the answer coming. Still makes no sense to me....but once again...round and round and round and round.....

I do notice that you avoid the question of why you do not feel compelled to stand up for Sue or Eric. If you review this thread, I have stood up for people I do not agree with when they were attacked by others.

If you want to make this about your desire to stand up for the oppressed, then extend that to all parties, not just those who you agree with. You are making this personal, because you do not like my personal style. You have never stated your legal "crededentials", so I cannot call them into question. If you want to engage in personal attacks, lets take it to PM. I have PM'd you per your request.

 

[Luckybee]

Ive responded to your pm...but I would say that suggesting that I got my law degree from a box of cereal would be calling my credentials into question !

 

[ecwinch]

In the interest of fairplay, I withdraw my previous sarcastic comment regarding Luckybee's license to practice law. I doubt that her license to practice law came from a box of Fruit Loops, but I never characterized her law degree. In the US, a law degree does not grant you a license to practice or read the law. Trust me, it was just a degree, then I would be a lawyer. My comments were in regard to her law license, not law degree.

I stand behind the rest of my posts.

 

[Luckybee]

In the interest of fairplay, I withdraw my previous sarcastic comment regarding Luckybee's license to practice law. I doubt that her license to practice law came from a box of Fruit Loops, but I never characterized her law degree. In the US, a law degree does not grant you a license to practice or read the law. Trust me, it was just a degree, then I would be a lawyer. My comments were in regard to her law license, not law degree.

I stand behind the rest of my posts.

Well in the interest of fair play I can tell you that in Canada a degree does not automatically admit one to the Bar either....procedures are quite similiar here to most of your states...ie Bar Admission exams, articling etc.

Nuff said about this .....have a nice night(morning

 

[lovearuba]

my position

The purpose is serves is to silent the critics. You complain on why we criticize, but you fail to take a real simple step to answer us. Just like you accuse the AOC board of.

So do not complain when we continue to post this forum. Mark chose to have this discussion in a public forum in order to solicit the widest possible forum to air his complaints and to bring pressure on Marriott. Most other concerned owner groups form and then move to a private venue to communicate with each other. Yet this group has continued to post to TUG. One has to wonder what why that is, if not to bring public attention and force MVCI to address their issues and seek resolution to avoid bad "press". So if your want to do that, then you need address the public concerns that are voiced by non-owners.

Again, I have not asked that Mark post any of his information on this forum. I have asked that he send his communication with the Board to me by e-mail. You keep suggesting that I want it posted to the forum.

I am starting to think that if you are a lawyer, then your license to practice law might have come from a box of Fruit Loops. Maybe a Captain Crunch. But perhaps that is why you phrased your comment on the law the way you did.

I understand the curiosity but I also understand that too much information may have already been posted here which did not help the cause. You yourself continue to use the word lawsuit which none of the "crusaders" have used in quite a while. Other tactics have been used. I also agree with Modofaruba, if tactics getting both sides to sit down and have a discussion that was genuine it would go a long way. Have a great day and I am so sad those SOX are floundering.

 

[modoaruba]

I understand the curiosity but I also understand that too much information may have already been posted here which did not help the cause. You yourself continue to use the word lawsuit which none of the "crusaders" have used in quite a while. Other tactics have been used. I also agree with Modofaruba, if tactics getting both sides to sit down and have a discussion that was genuine it would go a long way. Have a great day and I am so sad those SOX are floundering.

Was the "f" used in my name put there deliberatly because the Sox lost?
Are you attacking me after we were to be nice?(Just kidding,obviously).
That's how crazy this whole thing is getting.
Let's go for the powwow.

 

[ecwinch]

I agree that the tone of this thread has turned nasty. I have apologized to Luckybee, and I extend that apology to Love, Modo, and Mark. I will try to do a better job in toning down the sarcasm. That might make this thread less fun, but I will try.

I think it is important to note that there really is only a small group that is keeping this debate active, and there is no reason that we should not be civil to each other, regardless of the difference of our opinions.

 

[SueDonJ]

Luckybee, serious question:

Considering that you've posted that you wouldn't have a problem with MVCI severing its management contract with MAOC, is it possible that your goals here may actually be at odds with what this concerned owners' group wants?

Eric's point that was also made by Dave, Dean, John and several others throughout this thread makes sense if the goal is for MAOC to remain an MVCI resort. If any of them would be allowed to review ownership documents and/or correspondence, they could offer an unbiased view of the entire situation (rather than just the few tidbits that have been posted here) which could prevent the group from making serious errors or impossible demands. Despite the fact that they are not MAOC owners, they do have a combined wealth of knowledge of timesharing contract issues and practices as well as the MVCI model - why the unwillingness to take advantage of the knowledge that's been offered for free?!

It's worth a shot, isn't it - especially since two people here have now stated that perhaps mediation is the answer? Wouldn't it be better to enter mediation armed with that combined knowledge? Because certainly no mediator is going to enforce the hardline "Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is wrong wrong WRONG! and we want them to CHANGE!" mindset that's been displayed here.

 

[SueDonJ]

Was the "f" used in my name put there deliberatly because the Sox lost?

I missed that until you pointed it out, and then I snickered. Nice work, Lovearuba, and I'm sad along with you and the rest of The Nation. Did you notice too that nobody seemed to have any get-up-and-go this morning?

Okay, Modo, we're 8-4 against you now for the season, and it's time for mine and Love's team to get back to work. Be afraid, be very afraid. :rofl:

 

[Luckybee]

I agree that the tone of this thread has turned nasty. I have apologized to Luckybee, and I extend that apology to Love, Modo, and Mark. I will try to do a better job in toning down the sarcasm. That might make this thread less fun, but I will try.

I think it is important to note that there really is only a small group that is keeping this debate active, and there is no reason that we should not be civil to each other, regardless of the difference of our opinions.

Yes he did and we had a pleasant pm exchange....Im going to be good too

 

[Luckybee]

Luckybee, serious question:

Considering that you've posted that you wouldn't have a problem with MVCI severing its management contract with MAOC, is it possible that your goals here may actually be at odds with what this concerned owners' group wants?

Eric's point that was also made by Dave, Dean, John and several others throughout this thread makes sense if the goal is for MAOC to remain an MVCI resort. If any of them would be allowed to review ownership documents and/or correspondence, they could offer an unbiased view of the entire situation (rather than just the few tidbits that have been posted here) which could prevent the group from making serious errors or impossible demands. Despite the fact that they are not MAOC owners, they do have a combined wealth of knowledge of timesharing contract issues and practices as well as the MVCI model - why the unwillingness to take advantage of the knowledge that's been offered for free?!

It's worth a shot, isn't it - especially since two people here have now stated that perhaps mediation is the answer? Wouldn't it be better to enter mediation armed with that combined knowledge? Because certainly no mediator is going to enforce the hardline "Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is wrong wrong WRONG! and we want them to CHANGE!" mindset that's been displayed here.

My goals are definitely not to have the relationship with Marriott severed. What I did say(and gawd forbid Im not searching back to find the exact quote....lol) was that it might not be the worst thing in the world if that happened. In other words if it were up to me severing wouldnt be my first choice but if it were the end result I dont think that I personally would feel as though the sky has fallen. There are just to many other options out there nowadays to be too concerned that Marriott "might" leave.
Mediation is a great option but im not convinced that it would solve all the problems in this case. Remember this is just my opinion but I wouldnt be satisfied if the current board continues to sit. That may or may not happen if the group continues with the course of conduct embarked on...but that would be my goal.....dunno if that would be the "groups" goal but I suspect it would be one of them. What I would like is that I dont have to worry, or even think about our timeshare in Aruba Before with people on the board that I trusted I didnt have to. I never thought at all about our timeshare...other than to make sure I got the right day for booking 13 months out...lol. IMHO just too much has happened for ME(note this is just about how I feel) to have faith in this board as currenty composed(and without going through all the history once again let me just say that the fact that members of the current board ...the very members whose actions were being called into question were the nominating committee for the most recent elections would give me more than reason for pause ).

The "group" or Allan or someone has hired counsel...my understanding is that it is competent counsel....I think it is best left in their hands at this point ...perhaps mediation might be suggested or discussed with the lawyer hired but once that step is taken(hiring lawyer) anything else may undermine what that counsel is in fact embarking on.

 

[SueDonJ]

My goals are definitely not to have the relationship with Marriott severed. What I did say(and gawd forbid Im not searching back to find the exact quote....lol) was that it might not be the worst thing in the world if that happened. In other words if it were up to me severing wouldnt be my first choice but if it were the end result I dont think that I personally would feel as though the sky has fallen. There are just to many other options out there nowadays to be too concerned that Marriott "might" leave.
Mediation is a great option but im not convinced that it would solve all the problems in this case. Remember this is just my opinion but I wouldnt be satisfied if the current board continues to sit. That may or may not happen if the group continues with the course of conduct embarked on...but that would be my goal.....dunno if that would be the "groups" goal but I suspect it would be one of them. What I would like is that I dont have to worry, or even think about our timeshare in Aruba Before with people on the board that I trusted I didnt have to. I never thought at all about our timeshare...other than to make sure I got the right day for booking 13 months out...lol. IMHO just too much has happened for ME(note this is just about how I feel) to have faith in this board as currenty composed(and without going through all the history once again let me just say that the fact that members of the current board ...the very members whose actions were being called into question were the nominating committee for the most recent elections would give me more than reason for pause ).

The "group" or Allan or someone has hired counsel...my understanding is that it is competent counsel....I think it is best left in their hands at this point ...perhaps mediation might be suggested or discussed with the lawyer hired but once that step is taken(hiring lawyer) anything else may undermine what that counsel is in fact embarking on.

Fair enough. But please notice I didn't say that you would be perfectly fine with, that it's your stated goal to have, MVCI severing their relationship with MAOC. I said, "... you wouldn't have a problem with ..." I appreciate that you need to point out the distinction, but it's one I was also making.

If this came to mediation, I would think that the expertise of timeshare gurus such as Dave, Eric, John and Dean could be an additional aid for the group's attorney. That's all.

 

[Chemee]

I really wish this thread would die. By the posts, lines have clearly been drawn and there will never be agreement. So, why continue this banter? Pertinent info is not being posted here and it should not be posted since there is an ongoing lawsuit. Mark has the means to contact the owners on TUG via email and anyone stumbling upon this thread can contact him via TUG. There's alot of baiting for the heck of it going on here. Ignore it.