Facelikeapotato@lemmy.ml to shitposting@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoIdiom continuitylemmy.mlimagemessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up1272arrow-down110
arrow-up1262arrow-down1imageIdiom continuitylemmy.mlFacelikeapotato@lemmy.ml to shitposting@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-squarefidodo@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up14·edit-21 year ago“going sideways” is also bad. I guess the moral of that idiom is that directions are bad? I guess “going forwards intact” would be the good version.
minus-squareNougat@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up11·1 year agoRemaining motionless at room temperature.
minus-squaremuddi [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoIt’s “go up in flames” right? So the opposite would be “not catch on fire?”
minus-squarekeepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoExtinguished forward, but stopped
minus-squarePandantic [they/them]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 year ago “going sideways” is also bad. “Going forward in flames” is what it should be. You’re in flames, but you’re not going up, down, or sideways (all bad), but just going forward knowing the flames will probably subside.
“going sideways” is also bad. I guess the moral of that idiom is that directions are bad?
I guess “going forwards intact” would be the good version.
Remaining motionless at room temperature.
It’s “go up in flames” right? So the opposite would be “not catch on fire?”
Go down in water.
Extinguished forward, but stopped
“Going forward in flames” is what it should be. You’re in flames, but you’re not going up, down, or sideways (all bad), but just going forward knowing the flames will probably subside.