@Jaxagirl - Thanks for adding a word to my vocabulary. I take it you're Australian. I would use 2 (neutral) or 3 (informal), depending on the occasion. It doesn't bother me particularly, but a lot of people might take exception to your use of "myself" in 1, as there is no need for a reflexive or emphatic pronoun here. Just thought I'd get it in before the pedants arrive.

@Skeeter Lewis - and to complete the trilogy - object form - that's the term we use in TEFL, where we don't talk much about case.

@marnold - 'He gave it to Michelle and myself' - you're asking for trouble with that one; there are a lot of myself haters out there.

"She doesn't like me smoking in the house"
"She doesn't like my smoking in the house"
As AnWulf said both are correct, but I would say that the meaning is exactly the same. Use of the possessive seems to be mainly down to Fowler, who called the version with "me" a "fused participle", and condemned it. He said that "smoking" here is a gerund, and as a noun form should take the possessive "my". However Otto Jespersen, another great grammarian at the time, disagreed, and said that the "me" version was fine.

Most authorities allow the "me" version in object position. In the New Fowler's, RW Burchfield suggests that in modern usage the object forms and possessive forms are both used, but that the non-possessive form is now dominant, and that the possessive version is on the retreat.

The real problem, though, comes when it's in subject position:
"Me smoking in the house annoyed her"
"My smoking in the house annoyed her"
Those of use who usually use "me" in object position, might be more inclined to use "My" in subject position.

See: MWDEU - http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA753

I think comparing this with verbs of perception like "see" and "hear" is a bit of a red herring, because the" -ing" form here is not a gerund, but a participle - "I saw him crossing the road" is really like "I saw him and he was crossing the road" - We would never use a possessive there. And we can also use a bare infinitive in this construction, implying we saw the completed action - "I saw him cross the road" - We couldn't do that with the other example "*She doesn't like me smoke"

@Jasper -there is nothing wrong with "being warned" - it's not an object or predicate of "being"; the two words form a passive gerund. So the same rules apply: "without my being warned" or "without me being warned"; take your pick. To me Slemmet's original sentence with the gerund (whether with "me" or "my", "Can my car be repossessed without my/me being warned ?" is rather neater than an alternative with full verb, "Can my car be repossessed even if I haven't been warned".

Don't we already frequently use 'tailor-made' for plenty of things which have nothing to do with clothes? I can't see much difference with 'tailorable'. If somebody says to me 'This is tailorable to your requirements', we both know what is being discussed, and unless it was in fact a suit or something similar we were talking about, clothes wouldn't even enter my mind.

@SpeakEnglandveryDelicious - in TEFL we teach the following:
I used to live in London. - positive
I didn't use to like tea. - negative
Where did you use to live? - questions

This makes perfect sense, because the origin of the expression is the past simple of 'use', which use to have a meaning of 'to be in the habit of', and in past simple we do not use -d/-ed in negatives or questions, because we use so-called 'do support'. (I tell my students the 'd' is now in the 'do' word. Nonsense, but it sometimes helps)
I lived in London. - positive
I didn't like tea - negative
Where did you live - questions

The grammar is exactly the same with 'used to'. As Thomas Smith says, where we use auxiliary 'do', we don't use the final 'd', just as with other verbs in the past simple.
However, according to MWDEU, while using 'used to' in questions and negatives is considered an error in American English, some authorities allow it in British English. Nevertheless, In TEFL (BrE) we certainly teach the stricter version, without the 'd' in questions and negatives, but with the 'd', of course, in positive statements. My first reference, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, seems to keep to the strict view (see usage note at the bottom of the entry). It also goes some way to answering the original question.

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/used%20to
http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA933

In my experience (British English), it's usually pronounced "uh", the sound known as the shwa (/ə/). But it is sometimes pronounced "aye" (/eɪ/) when stressed. For example
"Can I have 'uh' biscuit?" (/ə/) - I'm given two biscuits - "But I asked for 'aye' biscuit, not two." (/eɪ/).

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives (/ə/) as standard and (/eɪ/) as a strong form in British English, but both (/ə/) and (/eɪ/) as standard in North American English.

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/a_4

@AnWulf - I take your point about the spelling system, and also about the "reforms" of the classicists (I think the c in scissors is part of that). I suppose I'm just too old to change (and I'm a product of a very traditional education, so spelling has never been much of a problem for me).

What you say about foreign students is interesting though, because my experience is rather different. I've been teaching foreigners full time for over twelve years, and spelling doesn't seem to be such a huge problem for my students. What they find difficult is mostly to do with tenses, conditionals, etc. But admittedly we concentrate mainly on conversation. But in what written work I do get, spelling is not a big problem - the main problem is to do with forming natural-sounding constructions.

But you're probably right that has an impact on literacy rates amongst problem among native speakers.

I was only joking about your "weird" spelling; I know your predilection for all things Anglo-Saxon. I just wanted to stress that my use of "-ise" verbs is absolutely standard in my cultural environment.

@Percy - re: "do I ought". I think we only have a choice between normal tense forms (with do) and modal modal forms with three verbs - the so-called semi-modals - need, dare and used to (but I agree modal use with used to is rare nowadays). so:
I don't need to do it (normal) - I needn't do it (modal)
I don't dare tell him (normal) - I daren't tell him (modal)
I didn't use to smoke (normal) - I used not to smoke (modal)

But with the full modals, which arguably include ought to, we don't have that choice - we can only use the modal form:
He couldn't do it
You musn't say things like that (spellchecker doesn't like that one!)
We ought not go there
although in practice I think we're more likely to use should than ought to in questions and negatives.

re:"Where did you use to live?" without time reference - how about, for example, in answer to something like - "We haven't always lived here, you know."

@Johnson G - whichever takes your fancy; there is no difference - Or are you just having a little joke? :). If you really have any doubts that they are the same, just check a dictionary. Oxford Online, for example, defines them both as 'every person' without qualification. Nothing about whether they include the speaker or not.

Incidentally, a Google search shows:
"Come on everyone" - 11 million
"Come on everybody" - 1.2 million

@Hacovo - Are you sure people are saying "I don't watch much stuff" without further qualification? For example, if somebody said - "I don't watch much of the stuff that's on TV nowadays" - that would sound like an entirely natural sentence to me. Could you perhaps give us some more context, or better still, an example.