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

[SueDonJ]

Well, oldone, you've asked the Million Dollar Question!

IF there is in fact concrete evidence that would prove wrongdoing on the part of Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to the extent that the owners' past fees could be reduced/refunded and their future fees wouldn't be impacted by legal defense costs, wouldn't you think that the evidence would have been produced long before the situation has gotten to the point where it is now?

Most of the timeshare-savvy folks who have participated in this discussion have reached a consensus that IF such evidence exists, a qualified attorney would have suggested that it be made public to Marriott et al long before now. It doesn't appear that's the case.

But the efforts of this "concerned owners" group appear to have shifted over the last year from demanding monetary recourse from Marriott et al for alleged wrongdoings that have cost owners, to efforts that will hopefully unseat certain current members of the BOD and voting in others who will be "more transparent." It remains to be seen whether those efforts will be worth the further price you owners might have to pay, and exactly how a "more transparent" BOD would impact your ownership.

Of course it's possible that the intended results of this group's efforts which have been stated in this open forum are all a smokescreen, and something entirely different is in the works over on the group's website which requires your personal information and declaration of support upon registration. Hopefully you'll get the Million Dollar Answer from a member of that website before you have to make any sort of public pledge to their efforts (whatever they may be.)

 

[london]

Well Said

Well, oldone, you've asked the Million Dollar Question!

IF there is in fact concrete evidence that would prove wrongdoing on the part of Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to the extent that the owners' past fees could be reduced/refunded and their future fees wouldn't be impacted by legal defense costs, wouldn't you think that the evidence would have been produced long before the situation has gotten to the point where it is now?

Most of the timeshare-savvy folks who have participated in this discussion have reached a consensus that IF such evidence exists, a qualified attorney would have suggested that it be made public to Marriott et al long before now. It doesn't appear that's the case.

But the efforts of this "concerned owners" group appear to have shifted over the last year from demanding monetary recourse from Marriott et al for alleged wrongdoings that have cost owners, to efforts that will hopefully unseat certain current members of the BOD and voting in others who will be "more transparent." It remains to be seen whether those efforts will be worth the further price you owners might have to pay, and exactly how a "more transparent" BOD would impact your ownership.

Of course it's possible that the intended results of this group's efforts which have been stated in this open forum are all a smokescreen, and something entirely different is in the works over on the group's website which requires your personal information and declaration of support upon registration. Hopefully you'll get the Million Dollar Answer from a member of that website before you have to make any sort of public pledge to their efforts (whatever they may be.)

Well said, you have summarized this matter in a precise and thought out manner.

 

[Luckybee]

i am an owner and i've now tried to read through most of these posts. i do not want to put all my personal information into the new private web site but would like to know if there is really anything more than what is already mentioned here. i've seen the renovations and they are good- the money was well spent and the resort is looking great. of course i don't want to have lots of large extra payments but i feel that marriott has explained where all the money went. can anyone who has been on the owners site tell me what more there could possibly be that could make me want to put in all the personal info that they are asking for? i'm afraid that they will just cause the fees to go up more because of all the legal costs. i don't see what the concerned group is trying to do- they talk about transparency but i can't even get onto their site unless i'm willing to go along with them and support what they are saying which may cost me more in maintenance fees in the long run. i don't use the internet much but when i heard about this down in aruba i was curious. the feeling that i got from the owner who told me about this was a fear of legal costs and that is my concern too. good money after bad.

Might I suggest that you go to the website, and on the front page of that site(before you have to enter any info) both the email address and phone number for Allan Cohen are prominently placed for owners who have questions about the info on the site and any other questions you may have about the intentions of the group.

 

[SueDonJ]

Might I suggest that you go to the website, and on the front page of that site(before you have to enter any info) both the email address and phone number for Allan Cohen are prominently placed for owners who have questions about the info on the site and any other questions you may have about the intentions of the group.

That's actually a good idea, oldone, to ask Allan point-blank THE evidence question and see if you get THE yes or no answer. There haven't been any reports of success with that particular strategy, but anything's possible.

Of course, you might want to limit your contact with Allan to a telephone call, because you're already uneasy with releasing your personal contact information and the questions surrounding how secure your email address would be with Allan are still unanswered.

 

[oldone]

thanks for your suggestions- i may try to contact allen. i still have mixed feelings about getting in touch with him because of my concerns that they may cause us to have higher fees in the future because of all the legal stuff going on. i will express this to him if i contact him. i have to say i can't see what they think they have hidden on their web site that will change my mind but i will see. why are they being so mysterious about all this? it is very strange in my opinion.

 

[modoaruba]

That's actually a good idea, oldone, to ask Allan point-blank THE evidence question and see if you get THE yes or no answer. There haven't been any reports of success with that particular strategy, but anything's possible.

Of course, you might want to limit your contact with Allan to a telephone call, because you're already uneasy with releasing your personal contact information and the questions surrounding how secure your email address would be with Allan are still unanswered.

That's exactly what I mean by stearing.
"Limit your contact"-you might get a disease.
You're "already uneasy"-stearing the witness.
"Security of your email"-watch your wallet.
Be real careful.

Do you see my point of view?

 

[Dean]

What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.

No one cares if there is a separate site, several of us suggested it and it is appropriate to do so. IMO, this is not the correct way to do so and there are more problems than potential help with how it has been done so far but it is what it is. To be honest, I would not personally be comfortable that my info was safe in this situation and would not be comfortable that any such info was truly removed but YMMV.

To other owners still reading this....Perhaps I was mistaken but I have always thought the whole point of the owners site was to no longer engage in futile debates with non owners about a resort that has absolutely nothing to do with them. If I am correct shouldnt Tug simply be used at various times to point out that there is in fact an "owners" site available, and when new information is available on that site.
Otherwise aren't we as owners simply falling back into the same habit of needlessly wasting our time debating with those who ....well....you know

As they say, don't let the door hit you in the ... (you know), LOL. As Sue points out, there has been a LOT of great suggestions by non owners that that resort.

Eric...Im going to follow my own advice and not engage with you . I have always felt from the very beginning and have consistently said that non owners have no place in this discussion, and I wont be baited into debating with the few non owners who wish to do so . On this we have always agreed to disagree....your little non owner group of 3 or 4 Marriott can do no wrong cheerleaders have always defended your "right" to jump in and given your reasons for so doing. You're entitled to your opinion as to why you have a place in this discussion . I just dont agree with it ! Have a great evening

This shows how little you understand about the overall discussion. I can't recall a single Marriott cheerleader post but even if there is one or two I don't recall, that as certainly not been a predominant theme. Not automatically agreeing and not blindly accepting certain positions is not automatically a vote for the other side. Unfortunately I do currently find myself rooting for Marriott at this point because I think that a handful of zealots have been able to make Marriott the sane and believable position after so much gibberish.

Im always amazed by those who give their opinions as though they are facts. I hope that you are awaiting Marks repsonse for a very long time but of course it is his choice to make. Part of not debating with non owners includes not providing them with any information that they are not entitled to

I don't recall any facts from either side other than those Marriott and the BOD have posted. Everything else comes down to a former BOD's word and the fact that there is a large SA.

The initial opening thread was meant for "owners" at this resort, and stated so in the title.

Owners at this resort should have their own website for communicating.

In the end the resort Board of Directors, and Marriott will have a meeting of the minds on how the resort is run, and how to set a budget and maintenance fees.

Unhappy owners, have choices to make, as to whether to remain on owner etc.

The saga will continue for many months to come.

Overall I would agree with your assessment on the actions and likely outcomes. Also, I believe the thread title was changed at some point and the "Read if an Owner" was not included initially but I don't have all replies back far enough to be certain on that issue plus I don't believe an OP has the right to install that requirement of the rules of TUG are followed.

 

[SueDonJ]

That's exactly what I mean by stearing.
"Limit your contact"-you might get a disease.
You're "already uneasy"-stearing the witness.
"Security of your email"-watch your wallet.
Be real careful.

Do you see my point of view?

Yes I do, but I think that everyone who participates in this discussion has tried to "steer" the readers to their viewpoint. What I'm doing isn't any different - I've chosen my words very carefully to reflect my opinion (formed over time based on all that's been related in this thread) that there may be risks to an MAOC owner who chooses to register on the site.

Your opinion is that the private website is beneficial to MAOC owners and registration to it does not present any risk. My opinion is that this thread and any other public information is more beneficial if the goal is to educate all MAOC owners, and the past behavior of certain principals on that website could present risks to those who choose to align with them for future efforts.

Do you expect everyone to agree with your opinion? I don't. And I haven't said that owners shouldn't register on the website or that any inherent risks might not be worth taking for an owner. All of the owners have to determine the risk factor for themselves, but how can they if they are not even aware that the possibility exists?

 

[ecwinch]

Sue,

Steering is only permitted in this thread when the "crusaders" do it. You think after 2000+ posts the ignorant non-owners would realize that this is the "crusaders" thread.

Just like that "special" information that non-owners cannot see because we will melt like that scene in Indiana Jones with the Ark of Covenant.

So we must just stew in our ignorance.

 

[ecwinch]

That's exactly what I mean by stearing.
"Limit your contact"-you might get a disease.
You're "already uneasy"-stearing the witness.
"Security of your email"-watch your wallet.
Be real careful.

Do you see my point of view?

Is your point is that Sue should not make suggestions to other TUG members?
Or is it that non-owners should not make suggestions to AOC owners?

I see people make suggestions to other members all the time. I thought that was what TUG was about. Are those posters also "stearing" the witness?

It is starting to seem that you are concerned that an owner might learn something here and then ask salient question on the owner site. God forbid that would happen.

Like the e-mail address question that Mark is avoiding. I wonder if he has the courage to answer that question over on the owner site. Hopefully a reasonable owner will ask that question. But then it might get them booted off.

 

[modoaruba]

Sue,

Steering is only permitted in this thread when the "crusaders" do it. You think after 2000+ posts the ignorant non-owners would realize that this is the "crusaders" thread.

Just like that "special" information that non-owners cannot see because we will melt like that scene in Indiana Jones with the Ark of Covenant.

So we must just stew in our ignorance.

But look who melted,it was the bad guys

At this point it's time to say:WHATEVER!!!

 

[ecwinch]

But look who melted,it was the bad guys

At this point it's time to say:WHATEVER!!!

Your post only demonstrates how ineffectual the "Crusaders" were in having the conversation here on TUG and why they had to flee to the confines of your insular environment.

For like a religious crusade - you had to accept one major tenet on faith only - that Marriott is money grubbing corporation that wants to stick it to t/s owners and will go to any extent (lying, violating contracts, cover-ups, election manipulation, removing Allan from the Board) to maximize their profits.

When that tenet is subject to objective review - it crumbles. For it ignores the actions that Marriott has taken - which cost them money - in order to try to make this situation right. Like paying for 48% of the roof replacement.

But this is not about the resort. It is and always has been about Allan getting his revenge for the way they treated him after his years of dutiful service. It omits one key issue. That he was on the Board for a number of years when all these alleged abuses were taking place. It was only after he saw that he going to be forced off the board due to term limits that he started to question things.

How many years did he walk by the Hertz desk - never questioning the business arrangement?

How many years was he on the board before he started to see problems caused by the roof? If the leaking caused so much damage to the resort and increased maintenance problems, why did he not see that? He was the Board President.

Why did he vote for the separation from the Surf Club when he knew that would only result in increased costs to the owners?

By his own admission to me - he was asleep at the wheel. Is that really the type of leadership the AOC wants for the future?

I hope that reasonable owners will see this situation for exactly what it is. A misguided attempt to restore Allan to power. This is not about transparency, it is about revenge. For the owners I only hope that it does not result in huge legal costs at the resort as the board has to fend off lawsuits from the crusaders. Your resounding victory on the mailing list should only indicate how problematic that issue may become. Has anyone asked the AOC board what the legal expenses have been for the past year? That is owner money that is being spent and does absolutely nothing to improve the resort. Instead it is probably going to be spent building a new pool at some Aruban lawyers mansion.

As always JMO.

 

[vincenzi]

Your post only demonstrates how ineffectual the "Crusaders" were in having the conversation here on TUG and why they had to flee to the confines of your insular environment.

For like a religious crusade - you had to accept one major tenet on faith only - that Marriott is money grubbing corporation that wants to stick it to t/s owners and will go to any extent (lying, violating contracts, cover-ups, election manipulation, removing Allan from the Board) to maximize their profits.

When that tenet is subject to objective review - it crumbles. For it ignores the actions that Marriott has taken - which cost them money - in order to try to make this situation right. Like paying for 48% of the roof replacement.

But this is not about the resort. It is and always has been about Allan getting his revenge for the way they treated him after his years of dutiful service. It omits one key issue. That he was on the Board for a number of years when all these alleged abuses were taking place. It was only after he saw that he going to be forced off the board due to term limits that he started to question things.

How many years did he walk by the Hertz desk - never questioning the business arrangement?

How many years was he on the board before he started to see problems caused by the roof? If the leaking caused so much damage to the resort and increased maintenance problems, why did he not see that? He was the Board President.

Why did he vote for the separation from the Surf Club when he knew that would only result in increased costs to the owners?

By his own admission to me - he was asleep at the wheel. Is that really the type of leadership the AOC wants for the future?

I hope that reasonable owners will see this situation for exactly what it is. A misguided attempt to restore Allan to power. This is not about transparency, it is about revenge. For the owners I only hope that it does not result in huge legal costs at the resort as the board has to fend off lawsuits from the crusaders. Your resounding victory on the mailing list should only indicate how problematic that issue may become. Has anyone asked the AOC board what the legal expenses have been for the past year? That is owner money that is being spent and does absolutely nothing to improve the resort. Instead it is probably going to be spent building a new pool at some Aruban lawyers mansion.

As always JMO.

I consider myself a reasonable owner. The thought of "restoring Allan to power" has never crossed my mind. To me, it has always been an issue between Marriott and my husband and me.

Revenge..."to inflict punishment for injury" in our situation is ridiculous. Life is too short for revenge.

Am I a "Crusader"? Absolutely not. Those terms are too dramatic as far as I am concerned.

Personally, I am very happy with our Marriott timeshares in Aruba and in Hilton Head. We have created memories that will last for a lifetime. We purchased our timeshare in Hilton Head from an owner through TUG. TUG, thank you very much! (we saved some bucks). But, I am very disappointed that Marriott did not fully disclose all of the pertinent information about our two weeks that we purchased in Aruba. To me, it was not ethical. I am not a lawyer. I am just a humble owner.

I have joined the "concerned owners" website. It is very informative.

 

[ecwinch]

As informative as it is, I think it is important to point out that you are only hearing one side of the story. This why in a legal environment, both sides of a case are presented. If only one side is presented, you cannot reach a fair decision on the information presented.

You can easily test that theory by asking the question about Allan providing e-mail addresses to Mark and see what the response is.

But thank you for sharing your personal experience. In this thread we respect the fact that individuals have different opinions.

 

[modoaruba]

As informative as it is, I think it is important to point out that you are only hearing one side of the story. This why in a legal environment, both sides of a case are presented. If only one side is presented, you cannot reach a fair decision on the information presented.

You can easily test that theory by asking the question about Allan providing e-mail addresses to Mark and see what the response is.

But thank you for sharing your personal experience. In this thread we respect the fact that individuals have different opinions.

First of all the group's site information is based on facts.
Don't demean Vincenzi's discovery as to what they read.
You harp on e-mail addresses and how they were procured.
This diverts attention away from discovery of facts.

I myself have surfed the web and found glimpses of history of the AOC site from Aruba government sites.FACT!

So if Vincenzi is now wondering if there is another side to the story I will give the web site of Aruba's hotel history.

There is no other side.

 

[ecwinch]

First of all the group's site information is based on facts.
Don't demean Vincenzi's discovery as to what they read.
You harp on e-mail addresses and how they were procured.
This diverts attention away from discovery of facts.

I myself have surfed the web and found glimpses of history of the AOC site from Aruba government sites.FACT!

So if Vincenzi is now wondering if there is another side to the story I will give the web site of Aruba's hotel history.

There is no other side.

Too funny. Is the world flat also? Do you live in this world where is just one side to an issue or just visit it from time to time? Does it have a river called Denial in it? Is there a timeshare resort there I can exchange into - being a non-owner and all.

And I did not say that your information was not factual. The problem is that it is likely incomplete (I cannot say this with authority, for my non-owner eyes would burn in the presence of such blinding facts).

It would be like creating a web site supporting Bernie Madoff for AOC Board President. I would just put up there "Former SEC chairman". See that is factual. But does it present the complete picture?

And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up. Mark made his lame attempt that was so transparent that my teenage daughter saw right through it.

There is the only reason it has not been refuted. Anyone can see that.

 

[Luckybee]

I keep saying Im not getting in to this...and I wont get into the substantive issues but here clearly Eric you have totally misrepresented what LoveAruba has said and I dont know if she's still even reading this pointless nonsense to call you on it.

"For anyone who does not want contact, they can simply send an email to Allan asking him to put them on a do not email list. Marksue will have to address retiredtotravel's concern on asking him to be a friend in facebook. Retiredtotravel, there is one person who has contacted Allan asking to be taken off the email list because they did not want to be contacted, I'm not sure if it is you but I did take care of the request so if you are that person you will not be contacted again. "
And "If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise. If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan. Mark will have to answer that question. I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that. I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are."

This is a far cry from "And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up", that you attribute to her. She said that it was up to Mark to address that issue, in other words she wasnt going to. That is not the same thing as saying that Mark WAS going to address it. She doesnt speak for Mark anymore than you or I do. As i said before I truly hope he doesnt respond but it is totally his decision. These and other issues now have a much more appropriate place to be dealt with....and we owners like it that way ....far better than feeding those whose motives are far less clear

 

[ecwinch]

I keep saying Im not getting in to this...and I wont get into the substantive issues but here clearly Eric you have totally misrepresented what LoveAruba has said and I dont know if she's still even reading this pointless nonsense to call you on it.

"For anyone who does not want contact, they can simply send an email to Allan asking him to put them on a do not email list. Marksue will have to address retiredtotravel's concern on asking him to be a friend in facebook. Retiredtotravel, there is one person who has contacted Allan asking to be taken off the email list because they did not want to be contacted, I'm not sure if it is you but I did take care of the request so if you are that person you will not be contacted again. "
And "If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise. If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan. Mark will have to answer that question. I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that. I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are."

This is a far cry from "And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up", that you attribute to her. She said that it was up to Mark to address that issue, in other words she wasnt going to. That is not the same thing as saying that Mark WAS going to address it. She doesnt speak for Mark anymore than you or I do. As i said before I truly hope he doesnt respond but it is totally his decision. These and other issues now have a much more appropriate place to be dealt with....and we owners like it that way ....far better than feeding those whose motives are far less clear

You are only trying to rationalize why the question is not being answered. The question is still out there and as I said, it is pretty clear why it not being answered.

Why else you do keep returning to this thread with these weak rationalizations - when you have rebuked others for doing so and have said you will not do so?

The answer to both is obvious. And as a lawyer you know that.

 

[Luckybee]

Weak rationalizations????? Now you're not even making sense. Lets see, ...I told you but perhaps you misread it..i'll give you the benefit of possible miscommunication...that I was only responding/returning because:
1. You clearly misrepresented what LoveAruba said(which btw you glossed over)
2. That Lovearuba never suggested that "your" concerns" would be cleared up as you stated she had said
3. That neither Lovearuba, nor you nor I speak for Mark and that he would make his own decisions about whether to respond
4. That I hoped Mark would not answer this question nor any others that you or other NON owners ask on this board
5. That the place to deal with "owner" issues is the "owners" board

Weak rationalizations??? Huh???? Where was I attempting to rationalize, anything at all...not weak or strong simply non exsistent.there is absolutely nothing I have any need to attempt to "rationalize..I wasnt explaining nor defending nor justifying anything whatsoever and somehow you read that out of my post...there would have been no reason for my doing so..wow I was right...there are those on this board who simply wish to critique anyone who is a concerned Ocean Club owner for absolutely everything....and you wonder why there are those of us who question your motivation?

And where have I ever "rebuked" anyone for returning with "weak rationalizations" The only thing I have said about anyone commenting is that I personally dont feel that this is where the conversations, discussions etc. about what will/will not and should/should not happen at the oc should take place and that I personally dont feel that non owners have any place in the conversations discussions etc. I think I've been pretty consistent in that position. But rebuked anyone for commenting....I dont think so. First you misquote Lovearuba...now me....you really should be a tad more careful about your references to the words of others....now that you can consider a rebuke!

 

[lovearuba]

appreciation

Hi
I am watching this thread but not as much as I previously did because it no longer serves the purpose we wanted it to serve. Its become the Sue and Eric thread.

There is another forum for owners and they are actively sharing information with each other. I have also provided information to owners on how to get their names removed from our email list. Some folks just want to remain on the list to get updates but do not want to formally register for the website. We are accommodating that request.

I do the registration approvals and I remove information for owners that ask to be removed. These are folks that did not formally register but are receiving emails asking them to register because they previously signed up to be contacted. If they email me and ask to be removed, I permanently removed their contact information.

For folks that are registered, they have the capability to either ask me to remove them or to delete their accounts themselves.

There are a few owners that have asked to be removed from the list. I ask no questions just delete the information. Most folks will indicate why they are asking to be removed and for those the majority of them are removing their information because they have sold their units. Most of those indicate it was because of the maintenance fees.

We are actively publicizing the website and for those owners that would like to help the cause one of our owners has prepared cards which they will provide. The information is on the front page of the website. www.aocconcernedowners.com

If any owner has any concerns we address those concerns because we do not want anyone to have any concerns related to privacy issues. I am unable to spend any more time answering to Sue and Eric because I feel they are not in support of our efforts and clearly misinterpret anything I or any supporter of the site has to say. We are not a small group as they would like owners to believe and we are working for something we believe in.

 

[Dean]

Hi
I am watching this thread but not as much as I previously did because it no longer serves the purpose we wanted it to serve. Its become the Sue and Eric thread.

There is another forum for owners and they are actively sharing information with each other. I have also provided information to owners on how to get their names removed from our email list. Some folks just want to remain on the list to get updates but do not want to formally register for the website. We are accommodating that request.

I do the registration approvals and I remove information for owners that ask to be removed. These are folks that did not formally register but are receiving emails asking them to register because they previously signed up to be contacted. If they email me and ask to be removed, I permanently removed their contact information.

For folks that are registered, they have the capability to either ask me to remove them or to delete their accounts themselves.

There are a few owners that have asked to be removed from the list. I ask no questions just delete the information. Most folks will indicate why they are asking to be removed and for those the majority of them are removing their information because they have sold their units. Most of those indicate it was because of the maintenance fees.

We are actively publicizing the website and for those owners that would like to help the cause one of our owners has prepared cards which they will provide. The information is on the front page of the website. www.aocconcernedowners.com

If any owner has any concerns we address those concerns because we do not want anyone to have any concerns related to privacy issues. I am unable to spend any more time answering to Sue and Eric because I feel they are not in support of our efforts and clearly misinterpret anything I or any supporter of the site has to say. We are not a small group as they would like owners to believe and we are working for something we believe in.

That is a very informative, appropriate and considerate post. Thank you.

 

[modoaruba]

from the funny flat world

Too funny. Is the world flat also? Do you live in this world where is just one side to an issue or just visit it from time to time? Does it have a river called Denial in it? Is there a timeshare resort there I can exchange into - being a non-owner and all.

And I did not say that your information was not factual. The problem is that it is likely incomplete (I cannot say this with authority, for my non-owner eyes would burn in the presence of such blinding facts).

It would be like creating a web site supporting Bernie Madoff for AOC Board President. I would just put up there "Former SEC chairman". See that is factual. But does it present the complete picture?

And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up. Mark made his lame attempt that was so transparent that my teenage daughter saw right through it.

There is the only reason it has not been refuted. Anyone can see that.

Sounds to me like pointless ranting to me. There is no sense in refuting.
I would encourage Mark not to respond to any questions posed just for the reason of principle at this point.
This is not a thread of The Inquisition which a few think it is.
If you would like to continue and provide further advertisement for the group,keep it coming.As I stated before,the group appreciates the recruits you provide them.

 

[SueDonJ]

Hi
I am watching this thread but not as much as I previously did because it no longer serves the purpose we wanted it to serve. Its become the Sue and Eric thread.

There is another forum for owners and they are actively sharing information with each other. I have also provided information to owners on how to get their names removed from our email list. Some folks just want to remain on the list to get updates but do not want to formally register for the website. We are accommodating that request.

I do the registration approvals and I remove information for owners that ask to be removed. These are folks that did not formally register but are receiving emails asking them to register because they previously signed up to be contacted. If they email me and ask to be removed, I permanently removed their contact information.

For folks that are registered, they have the capability to either ask me to remove them or to delete their accounts themselves.

There are a few owners that have asked to be removed from the list. I ask no questions just delete the information. Most folks will indicate why they are asking to be removed and for those the majority of them are removing their information because they have sold their units. Most of those indicate it was because of the maintenance fees.

We are actively publicizing the website and for those owners that would like to help the cause one of our owners has prepared cards which they will provide. The information is on the front page of the website. www.aocconcernedowners.com

If any owner has any concerns we address those concerns because we do not want anyone to have any concerns related to privacy issues. I am unable to spend any more time answering to Sue and Eric because I feel they are not in support of our efforts and clearly misinterpret anything I or any supporter of the site has to say. We are not a small group as they would like owners to believe and we are working for something we believe in.

Admittedly, I'm not in support of your group's efforts against Marriott et al as they've been related here. But that's not because of some vague personal vendetta against the people who are involved in those efforts; it's because I've reviewed the myriad communications from Marriott et al (those that are posted at my-vacationclub.com's MAOC website as well as those that have been reprinted here) and have formed my own opinion that their actions have not been incorrect. And that's what it has always boiled down to, for me - if Marriott et all has been incorrect, if they have breached the contractual obligations as they're specified in the ownership documents, then your group should prove it and move on. If they haven't been incorrect, which is how the situation appears to me, then you owners have to accept things and decide if your ownership still makes sense to you. I don't see any other choices, and dragging this thing out forever in the hope that Marriott et al will appease you by allowing you to circumvent contractual terms just to keep you quiet doesn't make any sense at all.

As far as your private website, I've said repeatedly that I couldn't care less if it exists or if owners make the decision to support your efforts through registering on the website. That's their choice to make, certainly it's not mine to make for them. However, since the website's inception several of us non-owners have pointed out logistical problems with it that you have since corrected. One example is the wording about the terms of support that was provided by m in this thread and added to the website's homepage, after it was pointed out in this thread that anyone who did register there might be risking having his/her ownership/contact information submitted in support of any future legal action taken by your group against Marriott et al. So that's another instance, in addition to these already compiled, of a non-owner in this thread helping your group to focus your efforts correctly.

It's true, from the outset MAOC owners have stood to suffer/benefit more than non-owners from the issues surrounding the resort. But for non-owners, there is value here in watching how/why owners might approach solutions to timeshare problems, as well as in how/why Marriott et al responds to the group's allegations and actions. I am certainly more educated about timeshare contracts and my MVCI ownership than I was before becoming involved in this thread, and expect that's true for all of us.

Now could we please stop with the "this thread no longer serves a purpose" and "It's useless to post here any longer but you've driven me to it" (paraphrased) nonsense for once and for all? This thread has served several purposes since its inception and every person who has contributed to it has strengthened this group's effort, whether our individual posts have served to reinforce or counter the ideas/opinions/statements that are contained herein.

I plan on participating in this thread for as long as it exists because I am fascinated by the subject, and because I expect to learn even more. I hope that we're all still here at the resolution between MAOC owners and Marriott et al, because we each bring something to the table. But most of all, as I've said throughout the thread, I hope that MAOC owners are able to go through all of this turmoil and come out of it at the end with the same good feelings for their resort and vacations that convinced them to purchase in the first place.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Its become the Sue and Eric thread. ...

Now where do I pick up my recognition button? If it's going to be All About Me, I want everybody to know it.

 

[Dave M]

In my capacity as moderator...

I have tried to stay out of this thread as much as possible and I don't take sides on the issues related to this thread. I have allowed considerable leeway in interpreting the TUB BBS Be Courteous Posting Rule in moderating this thread.

However, I am now issuing a stern warning to all of those who are at each other with accusations of rationalization, ranting, rebuking, incomplete or missing responses, caustic comebacks, general sarcasm, etc.

It matters not to me how valid your comments are. If you have something useful to add to this thread, please do so. If you have a question, seeking more info or a clarification to something added after this point, feel free to ask your question politely. However, if I judge that you have ignored this warning, you can expect a suspension of your posting privileges here at TUG with no additional warning. Failing to read this warning or arguing that your post doesn't fall into any of the listed out-of-bounds comments (including "etc.") will get you nowhere.

Thus, please read any message that you draft very carefully before posting it here.

Any comments regarding this warning will be deleted in accordance with the Posting Rule regarding making comments about moderating.

Dave M
BBS Moderator