James Dixon's Last Stand

ON-LINE DIFFICULTIES...

Ignorance, Hate, and Lynch Mobs: An Argument AGAINST Trek Computer Nets

Recently there has been a lot of talk about me, most of it behind my back, and a good portion of it ranging from half-truths to all-out lies. So, I felt that I'd might as well set the record straight and type out this little text file...

You will find me on few (if any) mainstream Trek echoes these days. Fidonet in particular is more of a battlefield of bullies than users. The rise of fan intolerance, network cliques, power games, anti-IDIC, and biased/abusive conference Cops has reached a crisis.

I can't speak for all fans or all networks, of course, but predominantly the new cyberspace variety, typically newcomer fans who refuse to hear both sides of Treknical debates. They insist on the "canon" (i.e. Michael Okuda's restrictive view that the only "real" Trek is the live-action episodes and not even all the films) and only the "canon" perspective, hostily rejecting the past decades of publications (which are all dumped into the "non-canon" category).

Challenging this Borg-like collective group-mind concensus is not tolerated by many of todays cyberspace Trekkers. Questioning Michael Okuda's vision of Trek is almost considered to be "going against God."

Even when specific material presented in the novels is consistent and does not contradict one word of on-screen information--because it is "non-canon" and "not recognized by the current producers of Star Trek." These people cling to words like "official" and "authorized" as though they are synonymous with "100% accurate, flawless, exhaustively-researched, word-of-Gene gospel, indisputably in keeping with Star Trek continuity." State that something is wrong or even a typo (the "bat'telh" let's say) in a publication and you've earned a 30 day "vacation" from a conference.

To these people, if something is not in "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" it does not exist and the book has THE final word on everything Trek. "This is THE Encyclopedia, officially sanctioned by Paramount Pictures, they would Not print false information!" They are just like the Iotians and THE BOOK in "A Piece of the Action."

So even though NCC stands for Naval Construction Contract number for over two decades now (as established in the Roddenberry-approved Star Trek Blueprints published in the early 1970s), the Star Trek Encyclopedia says it stands for nothing at all--therefore to this level of fandom it is the latter, and the former can't be discussed (at least without a lot of "Non-canon!" screaming).

Suppose someone asks what Dilithium crystals are used for. Someone will quote word-for word from the Okuda/Sternbach ST:TNG Technical Manual, page 60 titled The Role of Dilithium:

"The key element in the efficient use of M/A reactions is the dilithium crystal. This is the only material known to Federation science to be nonreactive with antimatter when subjected to a high-frequency elecromagnetic (EM) field in the megawatt range, rendering it 'pourous' to antihydrogen. Dilithium permits the antihydrogen to pass directly through its crystalline structure without actually touching it, owing to the field dynamo effect created in the added iron atoms. The longer form of the crystal name is the forced-matrix formula 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide. This highly complex atomic structure is based on simpler forms discovered in naturally occurring geological layers of certain planetary systems. It was for many years deemed irreproducible by known or predicted vapor-deposition methods, until breakthroughs in nuclear epitaxy and antieutectics allowed the formation of pure, synthesized dilithium for starship and conventional powerplant use, through theta-matrix compositing techniques utilizing gamma radiation bombardment."

Yes, but again What Are Dilithium Crystals Used For? Someone else will quote page 60 from the ST:TNG Technical Manual titled The Role of Dilithium: "The key element in the efficient use of M/A reactions is the dilithium crystal..."

Yes, but WHAT ARE DILITHIUM CRYSTALS USED FOR? Someone else will quote the Same passage... Does this sound remarkably like certain bible-toting factions who can quote entire passages from the Bible without Explaining what they Mean?

Now if I were to break the impasse by stating that the old Spaceflight Chronology manual from 1980 stated that dilithium crystals focused the energy output of the matter-antimatter reactors making higher warp speeds possible decades before Kirk's command of the original starship Enterprise. And added that this was called Dilithium Focus and several novels of that time agreed with this. If I supplemented this with data from the Officers Requirements Manual and the Star Fleet Dynamics Manual that dilithium also possessed the ability to "transtate" the raw radiation output of matter-antimatter reactors into electrical energy usable by the ship's power grid, and that the Geoffrey Mandel blueprint of the old Enterprise's warp drive nacelle also jibed with this--I would be told to Shut Up because these publications are "Non-Canon!" I would be told that Paramount's studios don't recognize these works. I would be told that the sources are nothing but "unauthorized fan drivel." And then, as the final word on the matter: "page 60 from the ST:TNG Technical Manual titled The Role of Dilithium states 'The key element in the efficient use of M/A reactions is the dilithium crystal...'”

A religion has been spawned and any who happen to have different opinions (or, as in my case, a wider perspective on Trek) are crucified. They are quite simply the anti-Fans and view the fans of the 70s and 80s as know-nothing nobodies unless they've had some contact with the Trek production crew--"the Real people who Know the Trek Universe."

As such, Michael Okuda, Rick Sternbach, and Rick Berman have been elevated to the level of saints and all-knowing Trek experts (whether They like it or not!). Only Their publications are deserving of merit. Fans are no longer considered to be contributors. Fans are nothing, and the only good fan is a fan who buys the "official" publications, sticks to them and only them, and keeps his mouth shut about all those "non-canon" other things out there--so say these "canonheads."

Now say that it is your opinion as a 20 year veteran of Treknical publications that Todd Guenther of Treknical blueprints fame, not Rick Sternbach, is responsible for the 1701-D Blueprints, after presenting immaculate evidence and you might be banned for life from the echo. Blasphemy! A MERE FAN who Dares to think himself Equal to The Powers That Be!

Or the truth that "the rare, recently unearthed" color version of "The Cage" was in actuality colorized footage from the black and white pilot spliced into footage from "The Menagerie." Likewise for voicing your opinion about a specific episode or film, talking about a new fan exploitation item out on the market, or just saying that you dislike certain new trends interjected by the writers of new episodes.

Can't talk about any of it. It's against the rules. In fact, to say anything negative (whether it's constructive criticism or not) about Any member of the production team (producer, director, writer, actor, even a Character) is interpreted as a "flame" against Star Trek, and appropriate action will be taken by the Cops.

Some don't even want to hear that Franz Joseph's "Enterprise" Blueprints and Star Trek Maps were on display in the Smithsonian Institute. Because FJ's works were published by Ballantine and not Pocket Books (today's "official" Paramount publisher), and not acknowledged by Michael Okuda (who pretty much doesn't acknowledge anything except his own books) they are "non-canon" despite their approval by Gene Roddenberry. A "hate group" clique has even sprung up bashing Franz Joseph's classic works because they are, you guessed it, "non-canon."

To quote a Cop: "Slavish devotion to third-party materials [the Star Fleet Technical Manual] has caused difficulty here before. I'd prefer not to see it happen again." Therefore bashing that is Okay since they, like most other Treknical works, aren't "canon."

Or, more broadly, a clique dedicated to knocking out old Trekkers and their "outdated views" (like the bulk of data presented in my Chronology file--which I should say is a banned topic of discussion in itself on certain Trek conferences!).

What it boils down to is a ban on Freedom Of Speech, and one's liberty to express opinions which run counter to those shared by the majority. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am Not supporting the use of dirty words and flaming on public conferences. Different opinions only. Civilized discussion beyond the films and episodes: novels, manuals, etc.

Intelligent discussion of "non canon" works is no longer appreciated. Opinions are fine if they are the "canon" opinions shared by those who wrote The Book. Fans' pespectives of the Trek Universe have narrowed. Those shared by many of the majority represent those of 90s revisionist folks who have not one grain of respect for the past 20 years of Trek publications, and have ranked them all into this "non-canon" category so as to put themselves on equal footing with the die-hard Trekkers who possess the ability to Read. The fans, like myself, who grew up digesting the early manuals, blueprints, and novels. IDIC is dead.

This very distasteful behavior is compounded by a few "rotten apples" who frequent the conferences, are Cops, or are good friends with the Cops; those in power. If they don't like your opinions or even your far-reaching Trek knowledge which they themselves don't possess, they can grandly screw you over through outright slander which, I might add, Is also acceptable if you are a Cop--but it Cannot be refuted by the person being slandered since That is off-topic and against the rules. They can flame you but you can't flame them.

And as stated in the previous paragraph, certain Cop-sanctioned flames are OK while others are forbidden (complicated, isn't it?). Another interesting tidbit: flame/personal-bash a user all you'd like with a smiley face ":)" tagged onto your post--and THAT is just FINE, so say certain mods. At least this is what I've come across whenever I've attempted to call it to the attention of the Cops who are supposed to Do something about threads of this nature: "There's a smiley so it's not a flame! Go F-yourself :), see it's not a flame!"

Personally I never use the facial expression characters because I find them slightly insulting of the readers' intelligence--and what I type is normally not of any personal nature in regards to the series.

No justice. The Cops are Always Right, are self-elected, and cannot be removed--in their very own words. I suppose after a while some begin to overdo it or else the Power of controlling the fate of conference participants goes to their heads. I've seen "good" Cops slowly change over the course of time into totalitarian dictators, the bottom line being that they are above the very rules they preach. You are wrong not They. The ultimate hypocrits.

It gets to the point when Cops tell you that you should place "IMHO" (In My Honest Opinion) in front of your messages (uh, like if they're not Your opinions then who's bloody opinions Are they?), that spoiler warnings should be preceded by X lines and not one more or one less, and then there's the subject matter nitpicking. On a TNG conference, mentioning Kirk is Okay if it's in regards to Generations but mentioning, say, Uhura is a no-no.

In fact, if you give a short and friendly reply to a newcomer on this conference who's asking a simple "What's Uhura's first name?" question, you'll get burned by the Cop. If you reply to another topic about cybernetics which originally was a thread about Data's construction, you'll get burned by the Cop. You then apologize to the Cop and attempt to intelligently explain why you did this and how it relates to the topics. He doesn't want to be told he was wrong, doesn't want to lose face, so he says this third message gets a third and final bye-bye warning. This got me tossed off of Fidonet's ST:TNG conference for a brief time some five years ago.

OverCop has since escalated into even more fine-tooth comb Cop which makes this look tame by comparison. Use the words "crap," "damn," "idiotic," or (my personal favorite) "for Christ's sake" in Any form, on one particular Trek conference, and it's considered "obscenity" (making me wonder if the Cops exist in the 1990s or the 1890s) and you get a spanking; and told to watch it!

Even if the F word is typed F*** or F--k, makes no difference. Yet in another message or two later you may see a Cop using the exact same words--if not stronger ones--and not in regards to an episode's writing or a character's degeneration but in regards to a Participant!

See, the opinions of the Cops are Always Okay, even if it blatantly violates the Cop's own self-imposed rules. So much for free expression.

You find yourself in even deeper trouble when Several of the Trek conferences have the Same Cop, who happens to be a very gullible 17 year old who believes all the hatred built up around an individual. The other Cops of this clique can Use him. He puts the pressure on you, analysing every word of every sentence you type, hunting for "unacceptable behavior" and gets congratulated by his Cop peers.

Yes, imagine a young teen granted the power to Cop Several conferences, with the power to kick off and impose bans and "vacations" on any individual he chooses. He doesn't like your praise or dislike toward an aspect of Trek and pop! You're wrong. You're history. Imagine a "Charlie X" in cyberspace. Very corrupt. It shows just how rotten and ugly the cyberspace world can be.

So you have a clique causing you trouble on one conference, shouting that your opinions are wrong and there is only one true Paramount view. You go to another Trek conference or net and find the same people there telling others that you are a troublemaker on the Other conference, and perhaps colorfully enhancing this by saying you've been banned from other networks for unspeakable behavior.

Again you can't publically refute it without getting a 2nd or 3rd Warning from the Cop (who is probably in league with the troublemakers who are his long-time buddies from way back, especially if they're on a first-name basis).

Then there's the curious case of participants here who Only post negative messages to You or about You, having nothing else whatsoever to contribute on other topics: "He Forces his opinions on people! How can you Stand him! I've dealt with him before and his I-am-always-right views. Knew him for 15 years. He has a long history of breaking rules. Oh you should've seen him here 7 years ago and I can tell you his removal was 110% justified..." "Yeah, he was asking for it!" "He killed my doggie 30 years ago..." blah blah blah (in reality, the same things which They are guilty of).

These people appear and vanish just to promote more chaos--they are the aforementioned troublemakers logging on under different names! How do they get away with this? Answer: many Own the BBSs they are calling from and can use any number of aliases. (BBS ownership being associated with power is, in itself, fairly common. Or perhaps I should say that after a sysop pours $$$ into a system, he can feel that he possesses absolute power over all callers and, after some time, extends this attitude to networks. Always getting his own way, at all costs). If one "role playing character" goes a little too far, it can be deleted--and replaced with a new one at no cost.

I've observed some things in common between a good many of these vendetta-toting types: many are in their upper teens or early 20s (yet will try to impress upon participants that they are much older), are the sons of well-to-do dads (lawyers for instance), meaning that they don't have to hold steady jobs themselves and have plenty of time to devote to network stunts described here, and go overboard using sophisticated language to reinforce the above (online thesauruses are so handy!).

One Cop in particular couldn't type FJ or Franz Joseph, he kept typing the man's full name of "Franz Joseph Schnaubelt" to impress upon others the idea that he personally knew the man as a soul-mate and had more insight than the rest of the conference people.

Another subtle gimmick is to talk about the production staff members on a first name basis. It really doesn't matter of course, but it does reinforce the illusion they want to project upon the uninitiated.

They also simply love their titles: "The Cleaner" "Modasaurus" "M0derator" "Grand Truthbringer" "Council of Elders" "Echo Ghod" etc. (their true colors are showing). I suspect that these arrogant snobs in real life are extremely small people in mind and body and need to manipulate and push people around by computer because they physically can't in the real world. Bullies exist in real life and in cyberspace--in the latter it's easier.

Then there are the null-brain younger participants who just drift with the flow: if they see one guy getting bad-mouthed, they join in. Before long you're reading "You heard the Cop, Bung-hole, you're not wanted here! Get out!" The lynch mob attitude takes over in full force.

Ignorance breeds ignorance and there's no help to be found from above. Friendship among the ruling elite goes far, and when things get slow and boring there's nothing like a little fun at the expense of a participant. Nothing like having a scapegoat.

One conference where my name is almost equated with Satan, is controlled by a "moderating committee" of buddies who play a number of games with the participants (and a good many are very much aware that they are games--but not All of them).

"I'm-a-Paramount-insider" is one, where a Cop posts up "inside information" he claims to have picked up from chatting with Paramount people. Re-read this "inside info" (upcoming episode lists, "proof" that Paramount is watching over us, "I was on the new ___ set today, it's Incredible!" and so on) six months later and it clashes Badly with what came to be. With the exception of information taken off of the Internet and other distribution sources (Paramount press releases, for example).

But that was half a year ago and everyone's forgotten the details, they just recollect that such-and-such works at Paramount and has an inside scoop on what's happening. If inquiring minds dig deep and bring the contradictions to the surface, he'll just smile, laugh, and say it was an "Echo-Barnum" and a big joke on everyone. What more can be said for one of these guys who posts a message up to All something like: "I've seen the script to this season's finale episode _____. It is Great. No further discussion on this topic until the episode airs!" Yeah, shortly after Paramount officially released the episode title's name on the Internet. A real "insider" for sure.

Another game is I've-Been-There,-Done-That-Ten-Times-Better-Than-Anyone-Else: the Cop tries to B.S. his way around. He won't give his sources or, rather, he'll give totally bogus ones. A recent post in this category was about Star Trek reaching back to the 1920s and having originally been a radio series, then a serial in the 40s before the 1960s series. This load of hogwash came complete with bogus episode, serial, and cast lists no less. "Wow, I never knew this, you must have worked with Gene!" He followed up on this with the usual "Sorry for the delay. I was too busy reading over the latest treatment submitted for the next movie..."

Another perpetuated conference lie was a Trek spinoff series aboard a starship called the Crazy Horse. They even claimed a conference was in existence dedicated to this bogus series in the works. A good many of these jerks are kids or juvenile-minded, obviously, but pose as adults.

The last words of B.S. I heard them peddling was that there were secret messages encoded within the new episodes directed at specific conference participants, because Paramount people "lurk" on the conferences! "I wonder what that bit of dialog in ___ REALLY means, Mr. Cop. Could you please explain to us the hidden meaning?"

Enough! So you sign onto another network now. "Aren't you that Troublemaker who got banned from all those conferences on the other net? Say ONE THING out of line Here and you're history!" And the biased Cop will have you targeted, wearing a hair-trigger attitude while he splits hairs in your messages looking for "threats" and "violations" (real or imagined). It starts up all over again, except now there's even more fuel, more momentum, to feed it.

Just like Captain Sheridan said in a Babylon 5 episode: if enough people keep talking about it, some people are bound to start believing it.

Ignore them and it will continue. Cops (especially the ones in this category) Do Not want to be ignored. They crave attention. In fact, it is Against The Rules To Ignore Cops--this is a Permanent Ban Offense in itself, regardless of it being the most logical and mature tactical approach on your part to keep them out of your hair.

"But isn't that like ignoring the flashing lights on a police car following you on the road?" one of the crowd says. Yeah, except you're dealing with a rogue cop with a personal vendetta against you, on a power trip, who feels that he is judge, jury, and executioner. There's the difference and it's a mighty big one.

Ignore them--or try to refute what they say--and you're history. Screwed either way. And even after you're history, guess what? They continue threads About You, piling B.S. atop B.S. until you are made out to look like the Trek Hitler of Cyberspace in the eyes of newcomers logging onto the conference for the first time.

The few friends and open-minded folks who See what's going on are powerless to do anything since any interference with the "moderating committee" goes against the rules and to piss off a Cop guarantees similar punishment.

There's nothing you can do by this time since your sysop has either dropped the conference or has disabled your ability to post in it.

It's staggering how evil some people can be and how far they will go out of their way to hurt others who hold different opinions. Add forged messages to this category and long-distance snowjob chats between sysops and Cops--and you can imagine what I've been put through. I have become mentally and physically ill from it all.

I have even lost a good many friends who were convinced of these sins simply because "the majority can't be wrong, where there's smoke there's fire, Everyone hates you so there must be Something to it."

Hate feeds hate, and the need to be among online conference friends in the clique reinforces it. I've lost sleep reading messages--from people I've only had the briefest of contact with, no less--knocking me down big-time, apparently because the other hot-shot big-mouths did, they had to join in. One person says something nasty about me, then another chirps in, followed by another. I'll never forget the farewell message of one long-time participant who quite literally told me to get a life, to get out more, and that I set a bad example to fandom.

Me: the man who busts his butt to type up free, exhaustively-researched text files like a thousand-page Chronology, a more than complete list of ship registries, text files discussing the evolution of Treknology over the years...All For The Benefit Of Fans. Me: the man who has more respect for IDIC than most 90s fans, for I try to integrate the past publications together into one coherent all-encompassing Trek Universe, rather than support the canon principle of exclusion.

I suppose it's the price one must pay for research and devotion. I wonder what names they would call me if I had my files published and mass-marketed: Ferengi, capitalist, manipulator and user of fans? Perhaps.

It's a losing game. I tried so hard to be helpful and informative on the echoes, willing to share my exotic little hobbies of Trek research with others at no cost. Now I'm getting the shaft from s.o.b. net-Trekkers using the conferences as ego-boosting springboards. The damage is done.

And some of these bastards are damn good talkers you can be sure. I've even been told that some people who needed "convincing" had been sent copies of "messages" I supposedly typed in a conference a (conveniently) good many years ago from Cops, and that they were "satisfied" that I was kicked off for my "conduct." If there's any truth to these forged, slanderous messages being passed around behind my back, I'd like to know about it so I can take legal action.

And to top matters off--on a deeply personal level--at about this time my cyberspatial girlfriend inexplicably vanished from the nets, perhaps through their underhanded influence. I am not a happy camper. Not in the least.

This isn't to say that All the Trek net conferences are bad of course. RIME is a decent place the last time I was there, as are some smaller conferences. The majority of the Star Trek conferences on Fidonet, on the other hand, are hell. The same Cops are on each Trek conference and an entire "committee" dominates a special one.

Why me? The answer boils down to petty jealousy over my accomplishments and the very structure of Trek conferences. I have noticed that many Trek Cops become Cops to boost their own self-esteem. They construct a "power base" of close-knit friends. Outsiders beware.

The majority also claim to have worked for Paramount, have Paramount "contacts," or otherwise claim to hang out with the Trek production crew. These individuals try to impress people, thrive on attention, and virtually do everything to act like they're Paramount insiders this side of hopping up and down with a Paramount Pictures logo on their posts. "Mike and Rick are very pleased with the new episode...I'll tell them..."

I'm not claiming that all of this is bull, but just by listening to them over the period of many years, their attitudes, and how they try to remain in the echo spotlight. It doesn't seem likely that the same person who claims to have access to Paramount Trek sets also hangs out with the producers, has seen the script to the next film, knows the writers and actors, has input into the scripts, personally knows the Original cast...yet can't answer jack when asked a common question associated with a recent episode's production.

Or how about a Trek Cop for X years who, all of a sudden out of the blue, now claims to be one of these "insiders" working on the set? The more snotty they are, the more they figuratively try to bust their butts to convince everyone on the conferences that they're touched by Paramount and are special.

I've always endeavored to maintain a fairly low profile so posters wouldn't be influenced by My opinions and I would hear their own ideas and views. It's the opposite with certain Cops--for they want their own opinions to be reflected in the echo.

In fact, some Demand it. A colleague of mine disagreed with the Cop's opinion that the "Constitution" class "Enterprise" had a warp core like 1701-D despite there being no evidence of such dating back to the Franz Joseph prints. He was told off, by the echo masters, that Okuda says there is one even if it's not in the old blueprints and what he says goes. The Cops and their vocal friends kept on him to either say he was wrong or to get out. He was dubbed a "Dixonite" and left without further abuse. Right after he abandoned the conference his name was quick to appear on the banned-for-life list of troublemakers.

More recently, a closer friend posted up a short, single message ad for my TREK9.ZIP file on their conference. He had never posted there before and he never will again. He was yelled at by the Cops and their supporters for advertising this free file because it was from me. He had the rules quoted, right down to the Dixon is "persona non grata" (that's their Sophisticated way of saying I'm on their hate list--they take it Very seriously to sound Sophisticated, at least when they're not making snide comments about someone behind his back), he apologized not knowing that a friendly post of where to find a free text file was forbidden.

Then he was booted off, given a lifetime ban from the conference! He wasn't even given a second chance nor did the sysop of his BBS stand up and question this action. There one day and gone the other.

If this wasn't enough, my friend's name appeared on the Neighboring TNG conference list of banned users some months later. He got the boot from the General Trek conference not the TNG conference--BUT the chatty Cops figured he could pose a "threat" to that conference so his name got chucked onto that list just for the hell of it! Ain't they powerful.

Before that, the very same Cop (the 17 year old) behind that mercy killing told me off when I posted my Chronology ad up on a Star Trek Fan Organization conference--a conference which had a total of half a dozen messages compared to the hundreds on other conferences. He threatened to kick me off for "posting an ad which had Nothing to do with Fan Organizations" as though I were a net terrorist looking for trouble.

I'd like to point out that if you don't see any future editions to my Chronology file around, these kids are entirely to blame. Shortly after the incident my friend created, at least one Fidonet conference (probably several by now) had the long list of rules amended to include banned users and banned users' WORKS forbidden. You mention James Dixon and/or my Chronology, or so much as Ask where to find it, and you're violating conference rules. With a big "NO EXCEPTIONS." So in short, they quickly Amended the rules to Justify kicking off "Dixonites" who did not share their "canon" opinions--Done After The Fact!

Another friend of mine got the same routine. Not for posting an ad for my Chronology but for Helping other fans and essentially documenting his references. Galactic quadrants of space were intelligently being discussed and someone asked if a map of Federation space existed in any form. He replied "There's an excellent one in ASCII by James Dixon called UFPSPACE.TXT" and noted that he could not put it up on the conference for whatever reason.

Bang-bang! MENTIONING James *Banned-User* Dixon not allowed. Further transgressions of the law will Not be tolerated! "But someone asked if such a map existed, so I directed him to a great file. Nothing more, nothing less..." Bang-bang! Rules quoted. Any response or questioning of these policies will earn you a 30-day suspension. Any further mentioning of Persona Non Grata will earn you a 60 day suspension. After that your feed gets cut or your sysop boots you off of the BBS. A copy of this is going to your sysop...

He got this on the Voyager conference. Some even speculated that he was me using a handle, and That particular thread was pretty popular too.

Who Cops the Cops? No One! Their own biased judgment rules. I had a friend ask a non-Cop on the same (DS9 Fidonet) conference about the James Dixon problem, his exact response word for word: "He was here for a while, but was ejected from the airlock when he made rude and crude remarks to a young lady on the open echo."!!!

Uh-huh. Right. This must've been the Evil James T. Dixon posting on the "Mirror, Mirror" universe's DS9 conference. Either that or nobody bothered to inform me as my fingers were possessed and did some typing.

The Closest I've ever came to this was a friendly and humorous "Hey, Trekkess, are you bonded?" type line posted in passing, probably on the tail end of a Treknical discussion. Or many years ago a comical "Trekkess Survey" gag on RIME. There is also a fun tagline I've used: "Trekker in pon farr seeks Trekkess for bonding, leave e-mail!"--pretty tame compared to other peoples tags.

Neither were "rude and crude" and I'm mighty sure they had absolutely nothing to do with this slanderous crap. Right now I don't know WHAT scum is floating around out there but I'm sure it's even more colorful (How about child-molester? How about murderer? How about Nazi war criminal? How about rapist?).

Anyhow, my friend posted a response to him (in clear violation of Dixon Is Off-Topic! rules--wow, a criminal!) asking for a copy of the "rude and crude remarks" message or messages be sent to him in e-mail. To further spice it up he added that a bet was riding on it.

I won the bet: No Messages found, in fact the request directed at more than one hot shot Cop was all-out refused. No surprise there. "I have several older messages of his misdeeds on file..." But: "I'm trying to locate these myself. Not sure if I just purged them off my system or not."

My friend's sysop was sent a private netmail message (Not to he himself but to the Sysop!) demanding that his access be quietly--and instantly--removed from the conference for 30 days. In such a manner, the participant drops out of existence and the slimy Cop's dirty hands aren't muddied. See, if the Cop had posted a Public message announcing the 30 day "vacation" he might tarnish his fair and just image in the eyes of the more open-minded participants. Can't risk that.

About a month later he got a very sudden "persona non grata" netmail message on the so-friendly TNG conference from Mr. Wonderful: permanent ban with a serious-sounding message making himself look like a totally innocent law enforcer:

"You have done several things in violation of the established echo rules.

1. Discussed banned persons.

2. Flamed.

3. Argued with the Cop in the echo about it.

I gave you a long rope. You pulled and pulled until I had had enough. You pushed and pushed until your behavior could not be tolerated anymore."

That's it--NO Appeal possible and his ability to post was severed by the sysop. If you want a translation of what really happened:

1. He mentioned my name so that's a "discussion of banned persons."

2. He gave his honest opinions, his likes and dislikes, about specific episodes so that's "flaming" even though he never used swear words and never knocked the opinions of other participants, simply disagreed.

3. Because he asked why James Dixon was a banned person that's "Argued with the Cop in the echo about it."

My friend was one of the few individuals who tried to expand the horizons of net fans, notably by posting--on-line and with considerably time--brief reviews and summaries of all of the Voyager novels. A quantum leap considering the routine one-liners such as "Wasn't last nite's episode GREAT!" or "What's the name of the ___ episode?" (Or the relentless dishing out of "Warnings" to participants for meandering too close to the holy rules, even though the mods themselves are constantly breaking them by discussing tagline lengths, a BBS that's going down, and so on--filling up the echoes with non-Trek drek.)

Well, guess what response he got. Yeah, Not One in regards to his reviews per say, but a thread basically of "They're Only novels and are therefore Non-Canon, and Non-sanctioned by Paramount; they're not a true part of the Star Trek Universe..." No one backed him up and the "advise" he was given was to leave the conference and start his own ST Novels conference. Yeah, right, the books are Condemned as non-canon by everyone there and a conference requires participants.

Anyway, back to me: after my friend's net-life was threatened I got him to pry some Straight answers from Mr. Cop about me. Talk about more colorful classifications: "He flamed and baited several users, and would not listen to others with different opinions or thoughts. Simply put, James went on a flaming rampage, and it was necessary to remove him."!!!!!!

Maybe child-molester or murderer aren't that far away, Nazi war criminal would seem an apt title for James T. Dixon, eh! If this is not a complete 180 degree turn around of what I AM, of what I Represent, then I don't know what is.

A few facts about this quote: it not only came from a Fidonet COP but was posted On a Trek conference in Public so EVERYONE could read, enjoy, pass the bull along to other participants on other conferences, and continue the myth of the infamous, psychotic, totally-evil James Dixon.

If that explanation isn't off-the-wall enough, here's the answer to Why so much as even innocently mentioning James Dixon in passing on the conference is totally forbidden. From the same Cop as the above quote: "To minimize any further damage and give him an opening to return without permission, it was necessary to further restrict discussion about him and his materials."

Wow, ain't he smooth. Translation: We don't want James Dixon's works to leak out, since his positive contributions (my UFPSPACE.TXT for instance) would reveal JD to be a hard-working "serious" Trekker who is nothing at all like the way he's painted by the Cops.

After all the ranting They've done about Me, they had darn well better cover their behinds because they know there's no turning back. It's best to shut him up, shut his friends up, and keep everyone in the dark about the real individual. And allow the B.S. image to dominate. How slanderous scum like this can be not only permitted but Built Upon on international conferences is disgusting. I guess I'm guilty until proven innocent. The Mark Fuhrman treatment.

So, after these wonderful experiences, my appearance on Trek-related conferences is rather rare these days. I don't pay for net access and I certainly don't subscribe to the Internet.

Speaking of the Internet, I am told that on that canon-crazy tech conference one of my long-time hate-mongering pals went out of his way to cross-post up old Fidonet messages stating my gripes with Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda's views. He did this to smear me further when Sternbach began posting there (remember Okuda & Sternbach = canon). This would be like taking messages from an Atheist conference and posting them up in a die-hard Christian conference, or vice versa. Real slime.

Pretty good considering how I don't have access to the Internet to so much as set the record straight, and had no control over how my messages (if indeed they all were from me) were introduced, nor how much of them were posted.

One beauty started off with myself being introduced as "an individual who regularly tears into you" and additional comments throughout about how I constantly rant and rave and nitpick the products.

Yes, I nitpick, I'm entitled to an opinion. I do it Intelligently without "ranting" or "raving": comparing and contrasting said product with others.

To this person, however, my Chronology file is an example of "ranting" and "raving." If one doesn't read what I type--or reads only a Fragment Taken Out Of Context of what I type, I can be made to look like a meanie (as indeed Anyone could).

Curiously, the response I read coming from "Rick Sternbach" consistently mispelled Todd Guenther's name, as did the person who posted up my "rants," and was mighty fast to condemn me. Hmm.

If I don't have Internet access then how do I know about this? Because the same scumbag who posted up My commentary copied the nasty reply from "Rick Sternbach" and posted it up on Fidonet's Trektech conference! Again hate feeds hate and hate breeds hate. And guess what, there's absolutely Nothing Wrong with what he did by net rules. No "vacation," no suspension, no ban. Nada.

They've latched onto me as a hate figure they can focus on--a name in their campaign against decades of "non-canon, unauthorized Fan-created drivel."

It's no wonder that I feel like the sole defender of Fandom--the real Fandom of old not based upon exclusion. I suppose I'm a microcosm representative of Trek Fandom's Past; versus Modern Trek Fandom's yielding to the Authority, the Franchise, or generally-speaking Commercialism and Capitalism.

It'll be interesting to see how the tables turn with Paramount's recent cracking-down against "non-canon, unathorized" Trek websites and the like. I honestly don't expect much of a change in views since my branded status is something else entirely now, having more to do with cliques and hearsay than anything substantial. Wherever I go I'm screwed.

Anyway, I'm not on the Internet and I also don't make long-distance calls because I'm nearly in the poor house as it is. All my Trek text files are uploaded to local (flat rate) BBSs in Northern New Jersey.

Even those are getting scarce for me. Guess why? My name up there in the often-printed Fidonet conference rules of people who are Banned and whose access should be restricted. A new sysop carrying a network sees my name on his user list and Bang! I'm either kicked off his BBS or given next to nothing access, if the latter case is true my file transfer ability may be cut altogether or else my uploads are carefully scrutinized (hey, a Banned Network Terrorist could just as easily upload a virus to a board, right? There's no telling What he's capable of!) and quite possibly deleted or made unavailable for download by users. Obviously if a BBS doesn't allow me to post messages or up/download files, it's worthless and there's little point in me calling it at all. Anyhow, back to the dawn of damnation and disagreement with a story...

I know of at least two people with Copship status on The most hostile Trek conference who collaborated on a Trek timeline many years back. What they produced was just a few pages long. I critiqued their work, politely giving them constructive criticism, showing them where certain dates clashed with episodes and so on (like the 2020 AD date for Nomad's launch being an ancient typo appearing in Bjo Trimble's Concordance--it should be 2002, the early 21st Century as stated in "The Changeling."). They interpreted this as an "attack" on their little project.

I told them I had done a timeline (at that time it was only a dozen or so pages long), and they mocked me in disbelief. I posted it up and the senior Cops began to feel as though I was taking away some of their attention.

A repeat of this occurred when I plainly stated that I had compiled all the coordinates given in Star Trek Maps into a text file, and they said I was a vicious liar until someone bothered to call my BBS and download the file (and this only after more outrageous shouting over not being able To download the file--because of BBS software configuration problems out of my control--"I therefore conclude that you, Dixon, are a blatant Liar!"). People began chatting with me about it, the majority enjoying my work.

I am an excellent debator and take Trek's nitpicky aspects extremely seriously, with an eye for total integration of Trek details. The Cops felt left out and believed I was stealing some of their greatness. They retaliated by telling everyone, and this is a quote, "Dixon is forcing his views on everyone." Plus variations on this: "We should all bow down to King James' greatness and his one-and-only True view, his 1,999,999 pages done in crayon..."

If I were "forcing" anything on anyone, then why would I start most every post with words such as "Well, as I see it..." or "Well, according to the book____..."? I've always tried to be very non-threatening, very open, and I always gave my sources. I never expect anyone to agree 100% with my sources, of course, but they are valid especially if I brought the source material out in the first place because it deals Specifically with the subject matter.

This does not necessarily mean that every fan participant has access to my sources since some reach back as far as 20 years--the same bad-mouthers attacked these as "non-canon" and even went as far as saying that just because they weren't in print anymore they weren't Real and outright told people I was a liar and was Making The Sources Up! Well, in recent years, there have been several high-quality books devoted to Star Trek Collectibles. I'll wager that 99.9% of my sources can be found listed in them.

In any case, when not talking Treknology I frequently allude to the novels, which also are "Non-canon" and not looked upon seriously. This one particular conference's hot shots pulled stunt after stunt to discredit me, expel me, and destroy me. Yes, it does sound a touch paranoid but I assure you that I have a couple megs of messages here which proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.

I stayed around because, despite a lot of hate, there were some good Trekkers who genuinely liked to talk about Treknology, timelines, starships, and many other topics of interest without leaping up and down shouting "Non-Canon!" in disgust. They liked my input, especially since (unlike the Cops) I was able to give specific sources to support my views (to this day I still take notes on the Trek novels I read, yes I know how pathetic and get-a-lifer that sounds, but it's true!).

It was still a battlezone. Most times it wasn't one-sided, as there were Pro-Dixon and Anti-Dixon groups arguing (though by this time I'd taken the tactic of ignoring all negative posts directed at me, hoping that they would lost interest and leave. They didn't.).

Eventually the like-minded Cops, who missed out on the crowds looking up to them as being special people with Trek insight, decided to exploit their Copship powers. They threatened my sysop: either lock James Dixon out of the conference or we cut your network feed.

My sysop naturally stood behind me 100% as he valued my Trek contributions. They persisted. They quoted rules and regulations (essentially: Cops hold Total control over conferences, cannot be revoked, and can do whatever they please). My sysop didn't want to sacrifice all his network conferences so, sadly, he complied and locked me out.

With me gone, the crap would Continue, with eventually the Pro-Dixon folks leaving (some also being kicked out) and the conference's group-opinion of me was burned into every newbie as being extremely negative. Some of my friends did still take "pot shots" at the Collective but were quickly silenced.

The Cops therefore, from time to time, tried to clean their act up a bit (in an effort to make their conference seem a bit more civilized) by making up nicknames for me. These included The Unspeakable One, The Jersey Devil, The Mugato, Star Geek Commando, Tech Nazi, and (my all-time personal favorite) TFLT (The Fucking Little Twit--to get this full meaning you'd have to send private e-mail to the Cops who would, I am sure, give the Full True Story about James Dixon's infamous net history and behavior! And according to them, TFLT is the official designation used By the Production Crew at Paramount for James Dixon--so you Know that he must've really done something BAD for the crew who work for the series to use such a term!).

Further encouragement for this route later came when it was an abomination to so much as mention my name in the conference--if you wanted to know Why this Dixon person isn't wanted around, they'd be more than kind to tell you Their biased side of the story in e-mail.

This is very clever when you think about it because TFLT looks like no other net acronym, so all newbies simply Must ask what it stands for and therefore get the full crock story to believe (for they've no reason not to) and pass along. Likewise for other postings: "This wins the Dixon Award for convuluted 'reasoning' unsupported by onscreen evidence." "Dixon Award? Who's Dixon? Tell me about him..."

And then there are Dixon taglines, many cleverly chucked into long lists of Trek taglines, so downloaders who'd incorporate them into their offline mail readers wouldn't recognize them for what they were until they got attached to their messages. I'll point out again that ALL this childish nonsense is NOT against the rules.

Because I live in New Jersey (and apparently am one of the few online Trekkers from NJ), endless New Jersey bashing threads and snide comments (known, on the conference, as "inside jokes") were spewed forth and still surface: N.J. being a chemical dump hosting mutants and contributing to The Unspeakable One's brain damage, for example.

A favorite, often repeated "Echo-Barnum" in this category is that Paramount Pictures was SO bombarded by hate mail from James Dixon that they decided to Parody him in the episode "A Matter of Time" thus the reference to Rasmussen hailing from New Jersey. After this was repeated over the course of years and conferences you would not believe how many actually believed it and probably still do (and it so neatly tied into their TFLT nickname).

It helped contribute to the get-Dixon hatred threads. Paramount Pictures has not one letter from me. I've always known better than to write to a franchise. But who's to be believed: me or 3, 4, 5, 6 like-minded jerks? The joy of this, again: how do they "know"? "We work for Paramount!" "We have contacts!" "We know what goes on behind the scenes!" Bull never lets up.

For a time there was even a James Dixon imposter to keep everyone's filthy faith in me alive. Speaking of which, if you come across a JamesDixon.com website, It Is Bogus. More slanderous filth spread by these low-lifes. Ignore it.

On other conferences I had to Prove my worth and then there was even no guarantee of it working. One or two of them would show. "Oh Poor Dixon, don't listen to him guys, he's just trying to be a martyr. Anyone who's known him for as long as I have knows the Truth!" "Dixon's been locked out of almost every Trek conference on every network!" is another beauty.

The truth behind this: more and more sysops in my area are no longer running BBSs. Local BBSs are my only access to these networks. Therefore if a BBS carrying a Trek conference decides to shutdown, I no longer can get On the conference. Simple.

Quite to the contrary, several online Trekkers who appreciate my input have bent over backwards trying to find BBSs local to me so I can rejoin them in online Treknical discussions.

My only wish was to talk with other hardcore Trek fans. I tried to put all the childishness behind me (even the text file you are reading now features no names of my troublesome twits, despite temptation). Unfortunately not everyone is so kind... Now if there's a new Cop on another conference, They'll Work on him.

I remember a Klingon Talk conference where I had uploaded a few good Treknical files I'd researched, with data drawn from the ST-TMP Blueprints, the McMaster D-7 prints, and the Federation Reference Series. The Pro and Anti-Dixon arguments started up again when a couple jackasses from next door began posting "Don't FORCE your views on us!" crap my way. I ignored it and carried on talking about Klingon ships, the homeworld, and related topics. The Antis multiplied when word got out next door that I was there--their friends came over. More of the same was posted until the majority of the posts were about me and my posts. I ignored them, as in the past.

The Cop who, up to this point was very open-minded and tolerant made a really brilliant decision. He told Me that I was obviously not very well-liked on his conference and that *I* should leave! He told me that if I didn't take a friendly hike Off of his conference that he would take stronger measures. The same stinking cycle of Hate again. Just because the bulk of the participants were Klingon fans who just happened to be Cops or friends of Cops.

And on this conference, using a Klingon name alias was permitted--you can imagine how just a few people could double or triple or quadruple their numbers to reinforce directed hate threads aimed my way. Rather than lose face with the big shots he chose the easy way out. I left without a single comment and never returned. I never spoke to him again, there or on any other conference.

The pattern repeated itself again the next year with another Cop (who, I might add, I liked a lot from other conferences--man, did he Change when he went from being a mere participant to a Cop!), but he was apparently swayed into thinking that a certain person on the conference Worked for Paramount and that any mildly negative opinion about the current state of Star Trek was not to be risked leaking out and damaging the reputation of the conference or its Cop. That is, all chatter had to be positive: all true fans love Every episode of Star Trek, everything is Perfect, there are No areas for improvement, the writers are Aces, the franchise is kind and appreciative of fans.

Deciding to join the bandwagon, he sent my sysop a message to remove my access. The reason he gave was a quote from a message I'd posted about Michael Okuda's misinterpretation of Gene Roddenberry (specifically: how Okuda, and not Roddenberry, chose the year 2245 for the Enterprise's commissioning date). To say that Okuda had made a mistake was a fatal mistake!

Recently I have been informed that Mr. Cop and Mr. Works-For-Paramount curiously post from the Same BBS--a board in Louisville, Kentucky. Yah, what a coincidence (even more so, considering that the last I heard from her, this was where my cyberspatial girlfriend was moving). I bet he takes a jet plane to work every morning from Kentucky to Paramount Pictures Studios in California...

Surprisingly I have found, on the other hand, that Star Wars and Doctor Who fans are more appreciative of IDIC than Trekkers. I never thought that I would ever have to say it either, considering what Star Trek has stood for these past three decades and (supposedly) what the fans believe in. The non-Trek echoes are worlds apart and are very tasteful. Cop-happy bullies don't stage hunts and slander campaigns there. Open, friendly, intelligent discussion of all aspects of these two universes is appreciated--and you may find me contributing, time permitting, to these conferences. I also enjoy general science fiction conferences (focusing on SF novels and literature). Generally a more mature crowd can be found here as well.

These fans don't bite and kick other fans who have a wider perspective of their respective SF universe. They appreciate far-reaching research, spanning books as well as the mainstream visual media. They don't squabble over what is "real" and what is not (at least not to death-defying levels of insanity), and they don't form elitist cliques and break into "canon" and "non-canon" gangs.

The Cops (if any, I should say, since good Cops Don't dominate conferences as a show of strength) are apparently very flexible. They don't force their opinions on you until you either yield to them or have your sysop inform you that he is dropping a conference because of private e-mail from a Cop.

James T. Dixon

9706.08