My girlfriend has a current account with one bank and decided she
wants to open a savings account with another and eventually move her
banking to this new bank. I'm an hsbc customer and have been really
happy with them so I suggested opening a savings account with them.
We went along one Saturday and spoke with someone about it and they
immediately got all defensive and started asking why, if she already
has an account, does she want to open an hsbc savings account. The guy
we spoke with was actually quite aggressive about it.

I reminded him there are promotional ads all over the place for hsbc
so why is it so strange that my gf would want to open an account with
them. He said they don't encourage people to have accounts with more
than 1 bank because 'they can't handle it, and often get into a
financial mess'. I reminded him it was only a savings account my gf
was after.

Anyway, I asked to speak with someone else to get some info for the
various accounts they offer. While we were sitting waiting for this
woman to look stuff up on her computer, she was started yawning and
telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
was 12pm on a Saturday!

I was really shocked by their approach and total lack of
professionalism.

Is it so unusual to have accounts with different banks these days?
I've had them for years!!

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Stephen2
 wrote:

>My girlfriend has a current account with one bank and decided she
>wants to open a savings account with another and eventually move her
>banking to this new bank. I'm an hsbc customer and have been really
>happy with them so I suggested opening a savings account with them.
>We went along one Saturday and spoke with someone about it and they
>immediately got all defensive and started asking why, if she already
>has an account, does she want to open an hsbc savings account. The guy
>we spoke with was actually quite aggressive about it.
>
>I reminded him there are promotional ads all over the place for hsbc
>so why is it so strange that my gf would want to open an account with
>them. He said they don't encourage people to have accounts with more
>than 1 bank because 'they can't handle it, and often get into a
>financial mess'. I reminded him it was only a savings account my gf
>was after.
>
>Anyway, I asked to speak with someone else to get some info for the
>various accounts they offer. While we were sitting waiting for this
>woman to look stuff up on her computer, she was started yawning and
>telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
>was 12pm on a Saturday!
>
>I was really shocked by their approach and total lack of
>professionalism.
>
>Is it so unusual to have accounts with different banks these days?
>I've had them for years!!

I have various accounts at nine different banks, in four different
countries, (including HSBC offices in three separate countries). That
may be a bit of an exception, but I don't think is at all unusual for
people to have their money deposited with two or three different
banks. In fact in the current economic climate it makes good sense not
to put all your eggs in one basket. I guess the guy at HSBC was having
a bad day.

Chris

Stephen2  wrote:
> telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
> was 12pm on a Saturday!
> 
12pm eh, when is that exactly?  :-)

-- 
Chris Green

tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> Stephen2  wrote:
>> telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
>> was 12pm on a Saturday!
>> 
> 12pm eh, when is that exactly?  :-)

Noon, of course.  Why?

12.30 pm doesn't mean twelve and a half hours after mid-day,
just as 11.30am doesn't mean eleven and a half hours before mid-day.

The day is divided into two halves, before and after mid-day.
An "am" time lies in the "before" half, a "pm" time in the
"after" half.

Strictly speaking, noon itself is neither before noon nor
after noon, and therefore neither am nor pm, but for practical
purposes it makes sense to define noon to be either 12am or 12pm,
or equivalently, to define 12pm to mean either noon or midnight.

In making that choice we should have regard for whether 12.00pm
should mean half an hour after 11.30pm or half an hour before
12.30pm.  I suggest the latter makes more practical sense.  We
should remember that it would be more logical not to have a
12 at all, but a zero instead, a practice we have adopted for
the 24-hour clock.

Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > Stephen2  wrote:
> >> telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
> >> was 12pm on a Saturday!
> >> 
> > 12pm eh, when is that exactly?  :-)
> 
> Noon, of course.  Why?
> 
12pm means 12 post meridian, the "meridian" in question is midday. 
Thus 12pm makes little sense, it's impossible to tell whether it means
midday or midnight.

2pm means "two o'clock, after the meridian" (or *possibly* "2 hours
after the meridian) and it's unambiguous.  However 12pm doesn't work
the same, it's either "12 o'clock, after the meridian" which makes
little sense because 12 o'clock *is* the meridian (or it's midnight,
in which case is it before the meridian or after the meridian). 
Alternatively if you go for the "12 hours after the meridian" meaning 
it's midnight which is (presumably) not what you meant.


You're effectively saying "12 o'clock in the afternoon" - think about it!

-- 
Chris Green

On 27 Aug 2008 13:16:40 GMT, tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen2  wrote:
>>>> telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
>>>> was 12pm on a Saturday!
>>>>
>>> 12pm eh, when is that exactly?  :-)
>>
>> Noon, of course.  Why?
>>
> 12pm means 12 post meridian, the "meridian" in question is midday. 

It's "meridiem" meaning midday and not "meridian", which is a great circle
through the poles, such as the prime meridian which is the circle through
Greenwich and along the International Date Line (apart from those wiggly
bits that were set by politicians).

Tony

tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> > Stephen2  wrote:
>> >> telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
>> >> was 12pm on a Saturday!
>> >> 
>> > 12pm eh, when is that exactly?  :-)
>> 
>> Noon, of course.  Why?
> 
> 12pm means 12 post meridian, the "meridian" in question is midday.

As Mr Gold has pointed out it's "meridiem", which means "middle of the
day" [after "dies" = "the day", "diem" = "of the day" (ablative)].

> Thus 12pm makes little sense, it's impossible to tell whether it means
> midday or midnight.

Of course it's impossible to tell, if you use the strict meaning of "post 
meridiem" which means "after the middle of the day", because noon *is* the
middle of the day, and therefore neither after nor before it.

> 2pm means "two o'clock, after the meridian" (or *possibly* "2 hours
> after the meridian) and it's unambiguous.

Yes, but no to the "possibly" bit, because then 2am would be
ambiguous, having to mean either "two o'clock, before meridiem"
or "2 hours before meridiem" which are not the same times.

>  However 12pm doesn't work
> the same, it's either "12 o'clock, after the meridian" which makes
> little sense because 12 o'clock *is* the meridian (or it's midnight,
> in which case is it before the meridian or after the meridian).
> Alternatively if you go for the "12 hours after the meridian" meaning
> it's midnight which is (presumably) not what you meant.

Quite so.  If we want 12am and 12pm to make sense (to have a meaning),
then it is necessary to *give* them meaning by making a definition
(in principle an arbitrary one).  The choice, as I explained earlier,
is between, on the one hand, defining 12pm to mean noon and 12am to
mean midnight, and on the other hand defining 12pm to mean midnight
and 12am to mean noon.  The former seems more reasonable than the
latter, on the grounds that it makes more sense for 12.00pm to be
1 minute before 12.01pm (which you must surely agree is indeed in
the afternoon) than for it to be one minute after 11.59pm.

> You're effectively saying "12 o'clock in the afternoon" - think about it!

I know, I've addressed this issue.

Anthony R. Gold  wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2008 13:16:40 GMT, tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Stephen2  wrote:
> >>>> telling us how tired she was and how she 'can't wait to go home'! It
> >>>> was 12pm on a Saturday!
> >>>>
> >>> 12pm eh, when is that exactly?  :-)
> >>
> >> Noon, of course.  Why?
> >>
> > 12pm means 12 post meridian, the "meridian" in question is midday. 
> 
> It's "meridiem" meaning midday and not "meridian", which is a great circle
> through the poles, such as the prime meridian which is the circle through
> Greenwich and along the International Date Line (apart from those wiggly
> bits that were set by politicians).
> 
Oops, so it is, so much for my Latin education (it was a long time
ago).

-- 
Chris Green

Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Quite so.  If we want 12am and 12pm to make sense (to have a meaning),
> then it is necessary to *give* them meaning by making a definition
> (in principle an arbitrary one).  The choice, as I explained earlier,
> is between, on the one hand, defining 12pm to mean noon and 12am to
> mean midnight, and on the other hand defining 12pm to mean midnight
> and 12am to mean noon.

As you say, there's a choice - and there's no real way to decide which
'choice' you've made.  Hence it's much better simply to say midday, or
even 12:00 which makes a whole lot more sense than 12pm to my mind.

>                               The former seems more reasonable than the
> latter, on the grounds that it makes more sense for 12.00pm to be
> 1 minute before 12.01pm (which you must surely agree is indeed in
> the afternoon) than for it to be one minute after 11.59pm.
> 
I don't see why really.

-- 
Chris Green

tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> Quite so.  If we want 12am and 12pm to make sense (to have a meaning),
>> then it is necessary to *give* them meaning by making a definition
>> (in principle an arbitrary one).  The choice, as I explained earlier,
>> is between, on the one hand, defining 12pm to mean noon and 12am to
>> mean midnight, and on the other hand defining 12pm to mean midnight
>> and 12am to mean noon.
> 
> As you say, there's a choice - and there's no real way to decide which
> 'choice' you've made.

Fair enough.

> Hence it's much better simply to say midday, or
> even 12:00 which makes a whole lot more sense than 12pm to my mind.

No, because 12:00 is also ambiguous.  You can;t tell whether you're
using the 24-hour clock or not.

>>                               The former seems more reasonable than the
>> latter, on the grounds that it makes more sense for 12.00pm to be
>> 1 minute before 12.01pm (which you must surely agree is indeed in
>> the afternoon) than for it to be one minute after 11.59pm.
> 
> I don't see why really.

Because 12 really means 0, and then XX.YYpm means XX hours and YY minutes
from the moment at which the afternoon begins (which it does at noon),
and similarly XX.YYam means XXh and YYm from the moment the forenoon
begins (which it does at midnight).

tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> 2pm means "two o'clock, after the meridian" (or *possibly* "2 hours
> after the meridian) and it's unambiguous.  However 12pm doesn't work
> the same, it's either "12 o'clock, after the meridian" which makes
> little sense because 12 o'clock *is* the meridian (or it's midnight,
> in which case is it before the meridian or after the meridian).
> Alternatively if you go for the "12 hours after the meridian" meaning
> it's midnight which is (presumably) not what you meant.
> 
> You're effectively saying "12 o'clock in the afternoon" - think about it!

The day starts at 0:00.  That is before mid-day, so it is 12:00 am. 
Therefore 12:00pm is mid day.  And most of the time the clock spends at
12:00pm is after the point when mid-day occurs anyway.

wrote
> Thus 12pm makes little sense, it's impossible
> to tell whether it means midday or midnight.

If 12:00:00pm was midnight, what time
would it be a second later?  12:00:01pm?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:18:40 +0100, "Tim"  wrote:

>  wrote
>> Thus 12pm makes little sense, it's impossible
>> to tell whether it means midday or midnight.
>
> If 12:00:00pm was midnight, what time
> would it be a second later?  12:00:01pm?

And why is the second before 12:00:00am midnight not 11:59:59am?

12:00pm meaning noon and 12:00am meaning midnight are popular conventions
but those are neither based on, nor proven by, arithmetical analysis.

Tony

>>  wrote
>>> Thus 12pm makes little sense, it's impossible
>>> to tell whether it means midday or midnight.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> If 12:00:00pm was midnight, what time
>> would it be a second later?  12:00:01pm?
>
"Anthony R. Gold" wrote
> And why is the second before 12:00:00am midnight not 11:59:59am?

Well, obviously, because the time chosen at which
the 'am' and 'pm' indicators change, is on the hour.

Otherwise, when exactly do you think the 'am'
/ 'pm' indicator would change - if not at 12:00?

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote
> 12:00pm meaning noon and 12:00am meaning
> midnight are popular conventions but those are
> neither based on, nor proven by, arithmetical analysis.

The convention is merely that the 'am' / 'pm'
indicator changes **on the hour**.

>  wrote
>> Thus 12pm makes little sense, it's impossible
>> to tell whether it means midday or midnight.
>
"Tim" wrote
> If 12:00:00pm was midnight, what time
> would it be a second later?  12:00:01pm?

But if it was 12:00:01am one second after 12:00:00pm, and
half-a-second after 12:00:00pm was 12:00:0.5am, then at
what time would it actually become 'am' rather than 'pm'?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ...  We should remember that it would be more
> logical not to have a 12 at all, but a zero instead, a
> practice we have adopted for the 24-hour clock.

Would it not be even better, even for the
12-hour clock, to have *both* a zero *and* a 12?

That way, we could say 0 is midnight &
12 is midday and easily avoid all confusion.

Tim wrote:

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ...  We should remember that it would be more
>> logical not to have a 12 at all, but a zero instead, a
>> practice we have adopted for the 24-hour clock.
> 
> Would it not be even better, even for the
> 12-hour clock, to have *both* a zero *and* a 12?
> 
> That way, we could say 0 is midnight &
> 12 is midday and easily avoid all confusion.

It would create more confusion than it would avoid.
I take it you mean:

00am = midnight
12am = noon
00pm = noon
12pm = midnight

That's a perfectly reasonable convention, but once you
then add minutes you get the problem that early lunchtime
could be expressed both as 00.30pm, which is fine, and
also as 12.30am, and this would be a time which isn't
actually ante meridiem at all.

At least with the 24 hour clock there can be no confusion
even when expressing absurdish times like Tuesday 2530,
which although technically the same as Wednesday 0130, is
informally more accurate as it describes a time before you've
gone to bed.

>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>> ...  We should remember that it would be more
>>> logical not to have a 12 at all, but a zero instead, a
>>> practice we have adopted for the 24-hour clock.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Would it not be even better, even for the
>> 12-hour clock, to have *both* a zero *and* a 12?
>>
>> That way, we could say 0 is midnight &
>> 12 is midday and easily avoid all confusion.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> It would create more confusion than it would avoid.

Only if you did it the way you suggest below!!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> I take it you mean:
>
> 00am = midnight
> 12am = noon
> 00pm = noon
> 12pm = midnight

Nope, not at all...
I mean 00 is midnight (you can add the am indicator if you
like, but it wouldn't be necessary;  it would be "wrong"
to add the pm indicator), and 12 is midday (you can
add the pm indicator if you like, but again it wouldn't be
necessary;  it would be "wrong" to add the am indicator).


"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> That's a perfectly reasonable convention, but once
> you then add minutes you get the problem that
> early lunchtime could be expressed both as
> 00.30pm, which is fine, and also as 12.30am, ...

No, I would suggest that 12:30pm
is the only allowed expression here.
[Or perhaps just 12:30, without the
'pm', as it wouldn't be ambiguous.]


"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... and this would be a time which
> isn't actually ante meridiem at all.
>
> At least with the 24 hour clock there can be no
> confusion even when expressing absurdish times like
> Tuesday 2530, which although technically the same
> as Wednesday 0130, is informally more accurate
> as it describes a time before you've gone to bed.

What time do you think I go to bed?   ;-)

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

>> 12pm means 12 post meridian, the "meridian" in question is midday.
>
> As Mr Gold has pointed out it's "meridiem", which means "middle of the
> day" [after "dies" = "the day", "diem" = "of the day" (ablative)].
>

Close, but both post (after) and ante (before) are followed by the 
accusative case rather than the ablative.

Phil

On Aug 28, 3:44 pm, "TheScullster"  wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>
> >> 12pm means 12 post meridian, the "meridian" in question is midday.
>
> > As Mr Gold has pointed out it's "meridiem", which means "middle of the
> > day" [after "dies" = "the day", "diem" = "of the day" (ablative)].
>
> Close, but both post (after) and ante (before) are followed by the
> accusative case rather than the ablative.
>
> Phil

Back to the original question :)

It's not that unusual - we do something similiar with other banks.
Perhaps it's just an HSBC thing? I banked with them for 16 years but
had to change as they were so useless. Their customer service was
absolutely shameful. I won't bore you with the details but examples
are available on request. :)

I'd recommend shopping around.

Cheers.