“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.
Yeah, I think that's wrong. Since they are discrete and not a continuum. Since there are only two extremes.
If his new relationships were true it would make the opposite idioms consistent with their non-opposite counterparts. Kind of the same concept as a contrapositive proposition, i.e. 'if A then B' implies 'if not A then not B'.
I just realized that going up in flames and going down in flames are both very bad.
Clearly it's a function of |y|.
One way's flammable
The other's inflammable
The opposite of skeletons in your closet is no skeletons in your closet, not skeletons in the front yard. LOL
He said "Idiom continuity". That doesn't mean they all have to be opposites, he's just extending the metaphors in whatever direction he fancies.
"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.
“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.
I can't figure out the bag of cats one
If someone 'lets the cat out of the bag' they have shared secrets.
“Up shit creek with a paddle” - you’re in trouble, but you’ve got the means to get through it (tho it will stink)
The jig remains down.
I kinda want us to make “hold the towel” a thing. I like it
Don't panic. Always carry a towel.
Consistency?
Edit: Funny though!
Continuity is consistency across a spectrum.
Continuity is the presence of a complete path for current flow.
Yeah, I can buy that. My thought was that there is no spectrum here though. Just two points.
I think it's continuity, like a spectrum. At one end is thin ice, the other is thick ice. etc
Yeah, I think that's wrong. Since they are discrete and not a continuum. Since there are only two extremes.
If his new relationships were true it would make the opposite idioms consistent with their non-opposite counterparts. Kind of the same concept as a contrapositive proposition, i.e. 'if A then B' implies 'if not A then not B'.