Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
You're the only one who seems to think that's what it means. The rest of us, including the OP and the dictionaries, don't agree with that definition.
I don't care if he uses the term or not. But, it's probably not in his best interest to keep using it in a way that isn't consistent with its accepted meaning.
I'm not beating it at all. I simply pointed out that it is the OP that brought the term back into the thread, not the person you criticized.
I stand corrected. There's no horse, but there's plenty of horses' asses.
"No object" means that there's no figure too high. The literal meaning is definitely not possible, the dictionaries are not refuting that, they're describing usage. The usage is pretty much the same as "the sky's the limit" . Do you guys go nuts like this when someone uses that phrase? You know that someone isn't actually piling money to the sky, right?
How about "pulling out all the stops" ? Also, pretty much a synonym, yet they aren't actually talking about pipe organs.
BTW, his usage is completely consistent with the dictionary usage, it's simply an implied condition --if there's a difference that he'll be able to appreciate, then money is no object. He knows it's more expensive, he's asking if people have actually noticed an appreciable difference in quality. Why this obvious point seems to be going over your collective heads is beyond me. It's a perfectly reasonable way to put the question.
Self-appointed word police drive me crazy. They always get it wrong.