I've had many, many hours of fun reading Dixon's timeline and especially the annotations at the end. I was under the impression he was using satire to make a point about modern Trek. It wasn't until I got here and was pointed to some of his old posts that I realized he meant every word of it literally and had some pretty big problems with social interaction.
If you can untangle Dixon's worldview there's a lot of fascinating and rich history covered in his works. It's from his timeline that I learned of the Best of Trek
collections (from the end of the chronology, covering the fall of the Federation in the 8000's) and lots of old Treknical fanzines which I've since hunted down or found versions of online.
Unfortunately, the chronology itself isn't particularly useful when it comes to the modern Trek universe. Trek was and still is constantly rewritten - TOS itself couldn't decide if it was set in the 22nd or 27th century. So why did he hold fanzine sources (and they were fanzines, despite the pedestal he placed them on) like the Enterprise Officer's Manual
and Medical Reference Manual
above the dates in Okuda's Star Trek Chronology
, which was obviously going to be THE dating system all future Trek would base itself on? It seems utterly futile to try and keep reconciling everything new with a history that the makers of Trek don't agree with. His censorship and repositioning of incompatible dates when attempting to combine so many incompatible sources leaves them all suspect and renders the chronology, although a truly fascinating read and an impressive achievement, an unreliable reference.
I'd have enjoyed an 18th edition, to read his thoughts on the modern novelverse and especially the 11th movie!
Thanks for archiving this stuff.