When I first heard about this usage in a grammar lesson in middle school, it sounded weird to me, too. As in the linked page in your answer, my teacher taught us that using possessive pronouns (also known as genitives) is the only grammatical way to mark subjects of gerund clauses. While that way is more traditional and formal, using object pronouns (accusatives) is also quite common.
In chapter 14, section 4.3, of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, entitled “Non-finite and verbless clauses”, the main thrust lays waste to the traditional distinction between gerund clauses and present participle clauses, by arguing they all belong to a single inflectional category; namely, gerund-participles. However, there is a paragraph explaining the use of genitives with gerunds:
There is one respect in which ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ clauses differ in their internal form: with ‘gerunds’ the subject may take genitive case, with plain or accusative case a less formal alternant, but with ‘present participles’ the genitive is impossible and pronouns with a nominative–accusative contrast appear in nominative case, with accusative an alternant restricted to informal style. Compare then:
[39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.
ii. We appointed Max, he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates.
In other words, gerunds (as in example 39i) can take either the genitive (his) or the accusative (him) as subject, with genitive being more formal and accusative less formal. The nominative (he) is not possible as the subject of a gerund.
In participial clauses with a subject (as in example 39ii), there is a similar situation: both the nominative (he) and accusative (him) are possible, again with accusative being less formal, but the genitive (his) is not possible.
The page of “grammar tips” linked in the question confuses informal style with incorrect grammar, a common problem in grammar advice. The versions of the examples with accusative instead of genitive (e.g. What do you think about him buying such an expensive car?) are perfectly grammatical and simply a less stuffy style.
You will find many examples of gerunds with accusative subject—even in formal academic writing—so you should feel free to use whichever of the two formulations seems natural.
In English, the idiom is: [subject] is no more [noun or adjective] than I am is very common. Please check out my examples:
He's no more a thief than I am.
He's no more rich than I am.
He's no more young than I am.
Those sentences above are idiomatically sound.
This idiom should not be confused with:
He's no richer than I am.
He's no younger than I am.
In the first group: no more + adjective is not a comparative adjective. It is just a regular adjective.
He is rich. He is not rich.
He is no more rich than I am rich.
Please: "He's no more young than I am" implies we are both old. Just as: "He's no more rich that I am" implies we are both somewhat impecunious.
No more here means: His condition or state is not rich just as mine is not. Not at all rich. I'll leave poking at the grammar here to others. Frankly, I can't be bothered. :)
Best Answer
The first one is normal. The second one sounds a little more formal. I would avoid the last two as they sound a little awkward.