A more thorough explanation:

An objection to consideration of a question is a formal statement opposing something that is about to occur in court or in a parliamentary setting. It seeks the judge's immediate ruling on the point. The party objecting must usually state the basis for the objection to preserve the right to appeal an adverse ruling.

• Continuing objection: A single objection to all the questions in a given line of questioning. This is used when a judge has overruled an objection applicable to many questions, and the lawyer wants to preserve the objection for the appellate record.
• General objection: An objection made without specifying any grounds in support of the objection. This preserves only the issue of relevancy.
• Speaking objection: An objection that contains more information than needed by the judge to sustain or overrule it. Many judges prohibit lawyers from using speaking objections because of the potential for influencing the jury.
• Specific objection: An objection that is accompanied by a statement of one or more grounds in support of the objection.
• Parliamentary law: A motion that suppresses a main motion, especially one that will or may inflame controversy, immediately and without debate. This is used when an original main motion is of a delicate or personal nature, or is contentious or inflammatory, or is irrelevant, unprofitable, or otherwise objectionable or discriminatory.
• Patents: An examiner's action identifying a defect in the form of a patent application, usually in the specification or a drawing. An objection does not raise questions about the merit of the claims.

These examples illustrate how an objection to consideration of a question can be used in different contexts, such as in court, parliamentary settings, and patent applications. They also show the different types of objections that can be made and the reasons for making them.