There's a link to Field & Stream right on the front page, and apparently, we got a shout out in guns.com as well. How are you defining "hit it big"?

I think Zackmann got to go to SHOT a few years back with his IMFDB credentials.

I do agree, the forum is withering on the vine without a steady influx of new members, but it's only a small part of what we are. I mainly just use it to discuss rules with the other admins.

I don't see ads on the front page because I'm logged in most of the time. Do you have a link to the guns.com article?

Zackmann08's user page doesn't appear to list any of his "credentials"--what are they, exactly?

As for my definition of "hit it big," I thought there would have been a large surge of user activity on the wiki with no quiet periods, which hasn't apparently been the case. Of course, low activity on the forum means there aren't things like flame wars or the like, which could come if enough people register here.

A real sign for "hit it big" would there to be enough users to have let the previously proposed wiki upgrade be funded. That certainly didn't pan out.

There's a link in the "In the News" section, and when I refer to Zackmann's credentials, I'm referring to media credentials.

I think the upgrade may have been a bit overly ambitious. The site's always depended on the contributions of a core group of content creators, but the fact is, they're the people who actually know what they're doing.

And I'm okay with no flame wars.

I've been busy, so I didn't see this. Short answer: No, we are not so popular that we can roll into SHOT show for free (and score with the floor models). We have longevity in our niche, and we are now regularly cited as reference material by everyone else. I just read an article on Colt's demise for Foreign Policy mag, which is a publication far outside of the gunternet, which cited our "Goldfinger" page. That's where I would say we've had the last laugh.

I realize playing devil's advocate can serve a purpose, but this is not one of those times. Oh, and dude, I've been saying this for years, but please get yourself tested for Asperger's Syndrome if you haven't already. You gotta stop being so unnecessarily argumentative. I don't take it personally, but one of these days, you're going to say the wrong thing to the wrong person. Just saying.

Nice to see we've had impact in that area. Do you have a link to that specific article?

I'd like to see the right IMDFB members make it to SHOT show with an IMFDB pass, if that ever becomes possible.

Could you tell me just where I was being offensive then? If you're referring to how I format quoted posts, I like that because it's easier for me to respond to each individual point that way.

Sure:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/15/...ith-colt-guns/

Read the sentence, "Even British super spy James Bond occasionally used the American icon" and it hyperlinks to us. (Not a great article, BTW; it gets most of its content from a far better Bloomberg article, which is also hyperlinked.)

Me, too, but I don't expect that to happen, much as I would love to get into SHOT show myself on the basis of my IMFDB rep. However, since I maintain a pretty big gulf between my professional life and my IMFDB involvement, that would probably backfire for me.

I specifically said I didn't find you offensive. And I'm not talking about the way that you "format quoted posts". I'm referring to the way that you are so contradictory for its own sake, as you were to me earlier. I realize you think that you're just trying to make conversation, but you come across as pedantic. I don't think you intend to be that way, but I do hope you understand that you will rub people wrong if you do it too much.