Let's review, shall we?
Sean first claimed:
"Sometimes the Resort will take it back and we encourage you to try that first and if they do you don't need us. In most case's you can't sell it because the resort has the first right to refusal and more than likely they will and if your lucky and they don't it's called a quit claim deed transfer and you can still be liable if fees are not paid. Please, you have to be careful in giving some of the advise that you guys are giving because it can hurt a lot of people more in the long run."
After I called him out on this, his first response to me was:
"I have people call in everyday that this has happened to so i think you should do your research as well. i have also seen transfers come back and bite people as well so again i think you should do more research as well."
So, at this point, he is still trying to sell his story that a resort that has ROFR will somehow cancel your transfer to a willing buyer.
Then, a few more people call him out, and he comes back with this gem:
"The resort reserves the right to stop the sale and take it back and turn around and sell it for 30 times as much."
That is completely a true statement, but not at all relevant to his claims that resorts/developers will someone cancel your deal using ROFR. As heathpack points out, this is quite the redirection. The sale is still going through. If I'm the seller, what do I care if they resell what they bought from me. Let's say I use "Primo's" service, and they get me out of a timeshare somehow (by nagging, begging, whatever). What does Sean think happens to those intervals? They get resold to a new owner for retail price if the developer is still active. So, how is it somehow better for the original owner to pay Primo big time cash to get out than to SELL it for actual, real money? That is possibly the most nonsensical comment he made in those whole exchange, and he's made plenty.
But Sean really likes this "argument", so now he doubles down on it:
"I never said that and agree with what you are saying. You are flipping my words around. The bad part is the resort then takes the timeshare and resells it for 30 times more that the sad part. If they truly cared they could of at least bought it back from people for half of what they paid for it and still make a profit when they resell it."
So, I guess when Sean gets people out of timeshares, he is able to magically get the resort to give the owner back at least half of what they paid for it. If so, I think he should just take his payment out of the proceeds and not charge anyone upfront fees. Oh wait, do you mean it really doesn't work like that? So then what makes ROFR "sad" again?
It appears he has finally moved on from his "30 times" argument and now has this to offer:
"again you are putting words in my mouth and the resort hardly ever even uses the ROFR anyways so we never bring it up. The fact is if you call the resort they will not even buy it back for a penny."
Here he says that resorts hardly ever even use ROFR anyway (which is true) but it directly contradicts his statement that started all of this that "In most case's you can't sell it because the resort has the first right to refusal and more than likely they will." So, which is it? It can't be that the resort uses ROFR in most cases but they also hardly ever use it.
As far as I see it there are three possibilities here (and none of them are particularly good for Sean)
1) Sean knew what ROFR is and how it's used but he mentioned it incorrectly and purposefully as a scare tactic to drum up business
2) Sean had no idea what ROFR was but knew he'd heard the term before and figured he'd throw it in to sound knowledgeable. When called out, he looked it up, figured out he was wrong, and tried misdirecting so that people might overlook his mistake.
3) Sean did not know or understand what ROFR is and still has no idea. He found some definitions of it on Google that he copied and pasted here in the hopes that it would somehow make him look like he knows what he's talking about (Spoiler alert: It doesn't)
Pro tip: If you're going to come to a forum where people collectively have hundreds of years of experience on a topic, have engaged in millions of dollars of transactions, have sat on boards, and have deep insider knowledge of an industry, you probably don't want to make a flagrantly incorrect factual statement in a post to try to convince people of your competence and/or sincerity.