ftv fire truck pictures

Max · 03-28-2012, 06:28 AM

Does ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE look at these photos and say "you know, I wonder what fire department that truck belongs to?" NO, WHO CARES??? The only problem is that I think employers blow everything out of proportion these days.

As a mathematician I will make a statement and prove it.

Claim: The only people who care about the logo being on the truck are the people in the fire department itself.

Proof: We will proceed by cases:

Case 1: Suppose the person viewing the photo views pornography and enjoys it. This implies that they will only really be focused on the girl in the photo, and will not really care about the fire engine, nor who it belongs to. Now suppose that they do notice even in the off chance. They will not care and will not hold anything against the Fire Department.

Case 2: Suppose the person viewing the photo is offended by pornography, the only reason the will see the photo is if they accidentally stumble across it. And they will close the photo immediately.

Either way the logo will be unnoticed and/or nobody will care, as desired.

Tom M · 03-29-2012, 01:28 PM

Spot on Max, it's a nonsense along the lines, "Protect humans from the human body, it is, after all, a disgusting object" - gimme a break! Who's the model? that's more important.

TheDoctor · 04-02-2012, 03:56 PM

NOOOOO!!! The video got taken dwon before I cold watch! BUAAAHHHHH

Anoree · 04-02-2012, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctor

NOOOOO!!! The video got taken dwon before I cold watch! BUAAAHHHHH

Well, the gist of it was that some people got upset that equipment "payed with tax money" was used in "obscene depictions." The news presenter told that "most photos are so explicit that we can't show them." They showed pictures with the truck and a model with big black bars from hairline to knees, suggesting that they were full body nudes or even more explicit.

In an interview a fire department responsible told that the truck was decommissioned and sold to a private person with the fire department logos still on, when they should have been removed.

I compared the censored photos with the actual photo set and found that most of the censored photos showed none to little nudity.

In my eyes the whole topic is based on misinformation and massive exaggeration.
The right question should have been "Why were the logos still on the truck?" and not "Why is somebody shooting erotic photos with one of our fire trucks?"

hallux · 04-05-2012, 10:56 PM

Anoree is correct, I looked at the photo set and noticed the same thing - none of the images were all that explicit. The model was wearing a thong and a dress, with the thong exposed from the back. In fact, only 2 photos in the set show ANY nudity with the logo in view, one is a back/side shot, she's still wearing the dress but it's pulled up and the thong is gone. The other is a full frontal nudity shot.

The photo set was posted a year ago, making the shoot 18 months ago.

I think it's being blown out of proportion. Yes, the truck was bought with taxpayer money, but it was also SOLD, removing it from the inventory of taxpayer-owned vehicles.

03-28-2012, 06:28 AM	#1
Max Danielle's Imaginary Boyfriend Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 769	Does ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE look at these photos and say "you know, I wonder what fire department that truck belongs to?" NO, WHO CARES??? The only problem is that I think employers blow everything out of proportion these days. As a mathematician I will make a statement and prove it. Claim: The only people who care about the logo being on the truck are the people in the fire department itself. Proof: We will proceed by cases: Case 1: Suppose the person viewing the photo views pornography and enjoys it. This implies that they will only really be focused on the girl in the photo, and will not really care about the fire engine, nor who it belongs to. Now suppose that they do notice even in the off chance. They will not care and will not hold anything against the Fire Department. Case 2: Suppose the person viewing the photo is offended by pornography, the only reason the will see the photo is if they accidentally stumble across it. And they will close the photo immediately. Either way the logo will be unnoticed and/or nobody will care, as desired. __________________ when 2 people have ∫e^x from -∞ to 0, they integrate into 1

03-29-2012, 01:28 PM	#2
Tom M Dreaming of Danielle Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 61	fire truck phoney controversy Spot on Max, it's a nonsense along the lines, "Protect humans from the human body, it is, after all, a disgusting object" - gimme a break! Who's the model? that's more important.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-05-2012, 10:56 PM	#5
hallux Dreaming of Danielle Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 89	Anoree is correct, I looked at the photo set and noticed the same thing - none of the images were all that explicit. The model was wearing a thong and a dress, with the thong exposed from the back. In fact, only 2 photos in the set show ANY nudity with the logo in view, one is a back/side shot, she's still wearing the dress but it's pulled up and the thong is gone. The other is a full frontal nudity shot. The photo set was posted a year ago, making the shoot 18 months ago. I think it's being blown out of proportion. Yes, the truck was bought with taxpayer money, but it was also SOLD, removing it from the inventory of taxpayer-owned vehicles.