Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by pne, 14 Feb 2015.
Title says it all, really:
What's a "Crayonista", and why are they called that?
I believe the term 'crayonista' was started off by people commenting in the London Reconnections blog, to mean someone who thinks drawing a coloured line on a map is all it takes to build a new line, be it tube, LO or NR, or changing the colour of a line, implying it will instantly solve all possible problems. Especially when altering lines to orange...
Another pejorative they use fairly often is 'extendador', usually in the context of proposed extensions of the Waterloo and City line, especially when someone has just explained d all the valid reasons it cannot be done.
Crayonista, n. One who performs strategic transport planning with a box of coloured crayons, using them to draw lines on a map, without thinking through the implications.
For example, suggesting the linking of the Northern City Line services with Southeastern services by constructing a link between Moorgate to Cannon St.
A Crayonista for example might propose a line without fully thinking through the cost, terrain on the ground, actual user demand and market or just to satisfy a personal desire e.g. connecting their local town.
Isn't that a description of London Overground planners? Albeit a box of crayons were all but the orange one are lost?
Sooner or later LO is going to need some easier way to differentiate individual routes. I mean, it does work now, but you could probably say that about a lot of the tube network too!
May perhaps lead to '50 Shades of Orange'
They even wrote a song about them.
Thank you very much!
The problem with the mods on the London Reconnections blog is that they're incredibly condescending when you so much as discuss the merits of anything without a professional-grade business case. Their argument for using the term "Crayonista" is that you haven't costed the proposals out etc. but they seem to forget their site is just an internet blog - not a government office. If all you're allowed to discuss is whatever Network rail deems worthy of actioning what's the point, really. I'm not sure I've ever seen a site so hostile to visitors to actually tell them to stop talking on old articles!
I actually had a exchange with them a while back from which I quote:
...they also don't seem to distinguish between someone suggesting adding in a flyover (say, north of Wimbledon to get the District into platforms 9 & 10 and thence to Sutton in response to someone explicitly discussing the District Line at Wimbledon and the TL service to Sutton) and someone posting something like http://i816.photobucket.com/albums/zz84/SNAPEISCOOL/sunniespige_zps28b26bdf.jpg (which even I would class as non-constructive!) - that lack of distinction is what bothers me.
They get some knowledgeable commenters, certainly, but I get the impression that one or two miserable old goats complained enough about people discussing things they weren't interested in that they instituted the current moderation policy. :/
I think the term "crayonista" especially works for fantasy London Underground extensions due to the larger number of colours used on an Underground map!
I'm not sure what the equivalent term is for fantasy road ideas
You don't have to be an 'old goat' to be frustrated by the same people forever going on flights of fancy that clearly don't make any practical or financial sense, the moderation on LR is a breath of fresh air IMO.
How long has the suffix "-ista" been applied in common usage in English and which was the first English word to carry this particular suffix?
I assume it started with the Sandinistas, so when was that? 1980s?
Each to their own.
What I've noticed is the conversations increasingly end up going in circles or just dying off as the limited amount of "acceptable" dialogue is so small. Having a lively, active community is a good thing, IMHO.
Was reading the latest comments on the piece on the Bakerloo extension earlier where a first-time commentator had his first comment mostly removed for daring to offer his opinion on his local area in relation to the Bakerloo extension to which he responded he wouldn't even bother commenting again. That's clearly not a great way to treat your visitors, IMHO.
He described their behaviour as cliquey, which is a much better (read: polite) way of putting it. I just went with calling it a circle-jerk (#3, for the curious).
It's a common ending in Spanish, pretty much equivelent to "-ist" in English. But I guess it found its way into common English usage by way of "barista" which is close enough to "barrister" for some to find it vaguely amusing.
According to Wikipedia, Barista came from the Italian word for bartender. I thought Fashionista came before that.
Vista? I'm always hearing on the television/radio about some discount designer clothes outlets in somewhere called Bista,too.
The OED records "Peronista" being used by the Times in 1945 (describing supporters of Juan Perón's rule in Argentina - so from Spanish, of course), with "fashionista" being a positive newbie with its first use in 1992.
(I also looked up what OED has to say for "barista", and their first usage of it in English is this beauty from 1982: "A good barista can simultaneously keep an eye on the coffee oozing from the espresso machine into a battery of cups, pour vermouth and bitters..and discuss the miserable showing of the Lazio soccer team." If only our station outlets could achieve that...)
Barista, the means by which cafés try to suggest that making a cup of coffee requires the level of skill and training usually only required by brain surgeons or fighter pilots, and hence used to justify charging extortionate prices for a cappuccino...
I wonder ,in Costas near Law Courts, whether the customers in their black gowns identify themselves on the back as 'barrister', or even 'barrister maestro'.
agreed - in reference to the post at #10 by Mr JRT - there are many on this site who could do with such a dose of harsh honesty.
Do any of these places give out crayons to keep their younger customers entertained?
My understanding is the comments on LR are used to generate further articles. I mean, I think the point of the LR blog is far more oriented towards articles, rather than an extended comment section.
I think it's simply looking to achieve something different, which I find just as interesting as engaging in more open discussions here.
you will have to explain that to me. Sorry.
There seem to be plenty of people on this forum willing to parrot the status quo on this forum when it comes to the costs of projects etc. Lets not forget that our wholly inadequate means of assessing such schemes has seen two in situ railway lines paved over into busways, so I don't think the transport planners have any business being condescending with the public.
In what way are the means of assessment inadequate, and what evidence do you have that busways weren't the right decision? (I'm not defending the decision, just pointing out that a process isn't wrong just because it gives an answer you don't like).
As for London Reconnections, I've found their policy works well. The comments section is there for discussion of the particular post, and generally keeps on topic. Subjects such as 'plans up to 2050' tend to have a wider range of discussions allowed than very specific posts - it does get tedious when an article about (say) London Bridge ends up in a lengthy discussion as to why Crossrail 3 should go to Cheddington because the poster lives there. (fictitious example for effect...)
This forum is a much more appropriate place for general discussions.
The busways were chosen for one reason and one reason only. They were thought to be cheap.
I've never yet heard of a campaign or movement (outside of the imagination of Transport Watch) backed by local people and businesses to have a busway put in instead of a rail link.
Scotland shows that in parts of the country that have democratic accountability, towns choose a railway connection.
If this was londonreconnections, the above comment would have been struck out as off-topic and/or crayonista*. You can make your own minds up about whether that would be a good thing.
*unless perhaps crayonista comments are always on-topic in a topic about crayonistas?
If that be the case, then it sounds like a lousy forum.
How on earth is it a "crayonista" comment to suggest that an existing railway line shouldn't have been paved over to form a busway
I put the term in speech marks as it is a transparent attempt by supporters of the status quo to close down debate/alternative opinion by coining a pejorative phrase.