1 3 4 5 6  8 9 10
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 13 Jul 2004:

But the context is different. What is required precision in ... everyday conversation, no one would want to speak to me.

I'd say that that was a pretty strong negative judgment about the willingness of native anglophones to engage in not ... their inability to say what they have to say without sounding, as Bill Walsh might say, stupid, ignorant, and illiterate.

Are you not a native speaker yourself? I didn't realise but I didn't wonder until now.
". . . fewer and fewer (or should that be "less and less"?) native anglophones don't care much . . ."
"fewer and fewer" since "Anglophones" is a countable noun. The following negative verb "don't care" makes the sentence a little hard to understand. If you are suggesting that things are getting worse (fewer people care) then omit the "don't". Taking your statement literally, "fewer don't care" so "more do care" which I guess is not your intended meaning.
The particular usage problem here is not, it seems to me, an inconsiderable one, even in casual conversation. Haven't you ... my car stolen on me"? I have. It doesn't mean what it says; it means "because somebody stole my car".

I have never heard a native say: "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen on me". It sounds very odd but that is because of the "on me" at the end. Drop that and get "I can't drive you to work any more because I had my car stolen" then it sounds entirely plausible. Also I don't see anything wrong with it (well I believe that theft is wrong but I expect you know what I mean). The "had" is used in phrases which mean "deliberately cause to happen" but this is not its sole use. It is the past tense and past participle of the very important verb "have" which means it has many jobs to do.
Japanese, a wonderful language, has a variety of verb forms to express all kinds of things that we can express ... I'd never say that "I painted my bedroom walls and ceiling blue" if I had someone else do the painting.

"I painted my house" when they really meant "I paid someone to paint my house".
I do think that the context matters. In most cases of phone number changing, the important message is: "If you want to ring me, you need to call a different number". How the change was affected is usually irrelevant. I would call it pedantic to be fussy about how this was said unless there was some reason why it mattered.
See above. Do you need that level of precision when ... phone company and no human at the company was involved?

That feels very much like "I'm writing this post" instead of "I'm using my computer to write this post". I'd ... 2:00 p.m. on Friday, the transfer won't be made until Monday morning and won't get there until Wednesday or Thursday".

I would be happy to say "I transferred the money to your bank" regardless of how I arranged the transfer. The likely context is that I owe you some money and a transfer is the way, or one of the ways, that you are expecting to be paid. I would expect you to care that you were paid and you may want to know how you will receive the payment. I would not necessarily expect you to care how I achieved it. I may have done any of these:
1. Used a web interface from my home.
2. Used an ATM outside my bank.
3. Walked into the bank and filled out a form.
4. Phoned an automated service at the bank.
5. Phoned the bank and spoke to a human.
6. Started to use an automated service but got transferred to a human.

Why would you care? Why should I give this detail if it does not matter?
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Show more