"Firefighters"

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dub_nerd

Registered User
Messages
1,985
This may not be a scam as such, but I found it pretty distasteful. Got a knock at the door just now ...

Young lady: "Hi I won't keep you long"

Me (thinking, but not saying): "You've got that right".

Young lady (flashing an ID card): "I'm here from firefighters. We're talking to people about fire safety".

Me: "Uh ... right ..."

(she looks about eighteen, heavily made up, wearing a blue dress that's too tight and split to the thigh ... basically the most unlikely looking firefighter I've ever seen. I seriously doubt she's from the fire brigade.).

YL: "I'm sure you saw what happened on the news?..."

Me: "No".

YL: "What happened to Grenfell tower"

Me (thinking): "Has she noticed this is a two-storey mid-terrace, not a tower block".

Me (out loud): "Who do you work for?"

YL: "Mini firefighters. It's a new company ..."

Me: "So you're selling something? ..."

YL: "Yes, we have this ..."

(No doubt sensing her window of opportunity closing she thrusts out something that looks like a red can of deodorant. If it's a fire extinguisher it might put out a vigorous birthday candle.)

Me: "No thanks not interested".
 
Last edited:
Always someone out to make profit from a tragedy.


<snip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why did you have to describe what she was wearing OP? What relevance did this have to the thread? And to describe her in such a way?
 
pinkie123 said:
Why did you have to describe what she was wearing OP? What relevance did this have to the thread? And to describe her in such a way?
Click to expand...
Hmm. I thought twice about including that. Not because I didn't think it was relevant, but because I was pretty certain someone would bring up its political correctness, as you just have. The relevance is that she didn't look like the firefighter she implied she was, but like a pushy saleperson, which is exactly what she was. Here's one back at you: do you think her appearance was accidental?
 
dub_nerd said:
Hmm. I thought twice about including that. Not because I didn't think it was relevant, but because I was pretty certain someone would bring up its political correctness, as you just have. The relevance is that she didn't look like the firefighter she implied she was, but like a pushy saleperson, which is exactly what she was. Here's one back at you: do you think her appearance was accidental?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't claim to have any idea why a person male or female would choose to wear clothing other than that is what they wanted to wear that day.
If it was a male at the door would you have described his attire in the same way i.e. he was wearing a shiny suit with his shirt open to his chest....
 
pinkie123 said:
If it was a male at the door would you have described his attire in the same way i.e. he was wearing a shiny suit with his shirt open to his chest....
Click to expand...

I'm sure dub_nerd can answer for themselves, but I would have thought the answer to your question is "yes"! Beware of shiny suited salesmen would seem to be a fairly common warning...

In raising the question, did it not cross your mind that this was the answer and your original point may be a bit over the top?
 
pinkie123 said:
I wouldn't claim to have any idea why a person male or female would choose to wear clothing other than that is what they wanted to wear that day.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but then why are you bringing it up? I did, and do, claim exactly that.

pinkie123 said:
If it was a male at the door would you have described his attire in the same way i.e. he was wearing a shiny suit with his shirt open to his chest....
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Describing someone's attire isn't necessarily sexual. But if he was using sex to sell his product? Yes, if it had been relevant, I would have mentioned it.
 
dub_nerd said:
Describing someone's attire isn't necessarily sexual. But if he was using sex to sell his product? Yes, if it had been relevant, I would have mentioned it.
Click to expand...
I actually think you must be trolling now, but I will answer anyway.
Are you really suggesting that describing a womans appearance as:
too tight dress
slit to the thigh

isn't sexual?
 
pinkie123 said:
Are you really suggesting that describing a womans appearance as:
too tight dress
slit to the thigh

isn't sexual?
Click to expand...
I said, as a general point about the hypothetical you raised, that describing someone's attire isn't necessarily sexual. If your asking me about that particular case then, yeah, sure. Maybe you should get to your point (if you have one) rather than beating round the bush, as I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate.
 
pinkie123 said:
Why did you have to describe what she was wearing OP? What relevance did this have to the thread? And to describe her in such a way?
Click to expand...

These kind of comments drive me insane , the world is gone mad where you can't say anything without someone been offended . I enjoyed reading dub_nerd's summary of what happened, some people need to lighten up big time.
 
This thread is an effort to alert people to a potential scam.

I think it has served its purpose. If you want to continue the conversation, head down to The Depths.

Brendan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top