Does "Sidekick status" mean "partnership"?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, English Grammar, English As A Second Language
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Context:
Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution's red-hot radical
Andrew Berry1 Journal name:Nature
Published online10 April 2013

Sidekick status does Alfred Russel Wallace an injustice. He was a visionary scientist in his own right, a daring explorer and a passionate socialist, argues Andrew Berry.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 1,928 • Replies: 21

[+3] - firefly - 04/13/2013[quote]Does "Sidekick status" mean "partnership"?[/quote] A "sidekick" is a companion, or frequent associate, or partner, of another person, but often a partner with...

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Quote:

Does "Sidekick status" mean "partnership"?

A "sidekick" is a companion, or frequent associate, or partner, of another person, but often a partner with less authority or status than the other person. So, a "sidekick" isn't in a full partnership--he's off to the side, an adjunct, in some ways--his importance in a partnership is somewhat diminished by this sidekick designation.

Quote:

Sidekick status does Alfred Russel Wallace an injustice.

Being considered as merely a "sidekick" to someone else, fails to fully recognize Alfred Russel Wallace's accomplishments--it unfairly diminishes him--in other words, it kicks him off to the side.

0 Replies

Wallace was the friend and scientific collaborator of Charles Darwin. The theory of evolution often solely ascribed to Darwin was published jointly by the two men. A sidekick is a close companion who is generally regarded as subordinate to the one he accompanies. Wallace was not regarded as Darwin's sidekick during his lifetime, and received many honours. He was, however, a modest man. Some commentators have blamed Wallace's present relative obscurity on the growth of a "Darwin industry" of the 20th century.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Ndrew Barry may argue this assertion but history doesnt bear it out much. "Sidekick" is an accurate descriptive term because Wallaces original paper that stunned Darwin in 1858, was a mere descriptive intro to the tendency of speces to change over time.
When the joint papaer was presented in 1858 to the Academy, it was actually cobbled toether from Wallaces little work and Darwins 1844 intro to one of his notebooks as to what hes been finding
Wallace had no mechanisms for evolution--Darwin did

Wallace believed that evolution happened to the "group" , Darwin ws proving that its a change manifested via changes on individuals (DArwin was right)

Darwin asserted species intra competition, Wallace believed in species changing to meet a changing environment (He later modifies this with using some Darwinian logic to propose the "Wallace Effect".

Darwin did the math re: the importance of sexual selection, Wallace had no clue

Wallace became an outspoken teleological spiritualist thinker (He became "done" with natural selection because it only occured three times in the world.

Wallace did some good sdescriptive work (like he described the "Wallace Line" in the malay wherein animals on the West of the line were clearly Asian, and animal species (and plants) on the east were polynesian Island species (The mechanism, tectonics) wasnt understood until Wegener spoke out in ten1920's

Ive never bee a fabn of heaping so much praise on Wallace because he was only as heavy duty a thinker about evolutionary mechanisms as was Lamark or Buffon. I believe "sidekick" is accurate and it limits Wallaces importance IMHO.

Theres no rule that anything thats on the web is correct (Im sure most Wallace "lovers" will disagree with my stuff.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

The name of this TV show is Batman. Robin, the boy wonder, is just Batman's sidekick. Note that Batman is considerably taller than Robin.

http://www.batmangiftideas.com/adam%20west%20and%20burt%20ward,batman%20and%20robin%20merchandise%20and%20collectibles,batman%20costumes%20and%20toys2.jpg

0 Replies

To what question is "Cock robin" the answer?

1 Reply

@contrex,

What do you want Batman?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

What do you want Batman?

I had it as "What's that up my arse, Batman?" but yours is good too.

1 Reply

@contrex,

I thinks you should explain the vernacular to our ESL student before his head explodes.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

OMG! I had completely forgotten this was an ESL thread.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ndrew Barry may argue this assertion but history doesnt bear it out much. "Sidekick" is an accurate descriptive term because Wallaces original paper that stunned Darwin in 1858, was a mere descriptive intro to the tendency of speces (species) to change over time.
When the joint papaer was presented in 1858 to the Academy, it was actually cobbled toether (together)from Wallaces little work and Darwins 1844 intro to one of his notebooks as to what hes been finding
Wallace had no mechanisms for evolution--Darwin did

Wallace believed that evolution happened to the "group" , Darwin ws proving that its a change manifested via changes on individuals (DArwin was right)

Darwin asserted species intra competition, Wallace believed in species changing to meet a changing environment (He later modifies this with using some Darwinian logic to propose the "Wallace Effect".

Darwin did the math re: the importance of sexual selection, Wallace had no clue.

Wallace became an outspoken teleological spiritualist thinker (He became "done" with natural selection because it (Wallace thought it?) only occured three times in the world.

Wallace did some good sdescriptive (descriptive) work (like he described the "Wallace Line" in the malay (Malay?) wherein animals on the West of the line were clearly Asian, and animal species (and plants) on the east were polynesian Island species (The mechanism, tectonics) wasn't understood until Wegener spoke out in ten1920's

Ive never bee a fabn (been fab/fabulous?)of heaping so much praise on Wallace because he was only as heavy duty a thinker about evolutionary mechanisms as was Lamark or Buffon. I believe "sidekick" is accurate and it limits Wallaces importance IMHO.

Theres no rule that anything thats on the web is correct (Im sure most Wallace "lovers" will disagree with my stuff.

Insightful!
PS.
Many misspellings there. Any one cares to confirm?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Im impressed with your editing skills oristar. I have a habit of typing fast and I make lots of mistakes. Youve nailed most of them and corrected them.

The one at the end was actually meant to be
Ive never been a fan of

Otherwise youve done great.

0 Replies

I imagine a conversation over dinner with oristar would be tremendously entertaining.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm beginning to think he/she/it is actually an AI.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

why you say?
Say something a bit snotty and shell come back in your face. Bots dont do that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Bots may not but AIs could.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

well, yoiure wrong about oristar.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Obviously I don't really think she is an artificial intelligence, but I'm sure she's happy to have you as a paladin.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Bots may not but AIs could.

You've proven that, Finn. But in your case, it'd be more like an AP - artificial propagandist.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Bots may not but AIs could.

You've proven that, Finn. But in your case, it'd be more like an AP - artificial propagandist.

I like this one AP. Very Happy

0 Replies

Does "Sidekick status" mean "partnership"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know