Is this what they call a "hit piece"?

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I think none of us considered ourselves "academics" of guns. I really think we should all be affectionately called gun nuts. Even calling ourselves "gun aficionados" sounds kinda pretentious.

I meant "academic" as though the wiki were an academic resource for guns in motion media, a "Jane's recognition guide to" kind of thing.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

And really the Metal Gear Solid series is a lot of faux military fantasies abound and should never be taken seriously. The holding a knife with your handgun sounds cool but not really fun in practice and doing it while holding a long arm is even stupider like in MGS4.

I just meant to say that if we can complain about an actor's poor attempt at a Harries technique, then we can question what appears to be an attempt to turn a Harries technique with a knife instead of a flashlight into a viable fighting stance. Getting a screenshot of that particular ingame cutscene could take some doing, though.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

When I here the terms academics used with guns, I think of gentlemen like Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor.

Don't those guys normally focus on firearms technique rather than things like recognizing them in motion media and critiquing the plausibility of their appearances and use?

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

"Ma'am, where with the IMFDB" sounds cool to me because it could almost be something said in a Larry Corriea novel. Whom I'm binge reading at present.

I'll believe that phrase is cool when it gets the non-armory-affiliated members among us passes into SHOT show or the like.

[MT2008]

I remember when that article came out. I'll admit to being pretty offended at the time. As others have observed, this guy is mean-spirited. He's also not as funny or as clever as he thinks he is (was...some of his later stuff is better).

In retrospect, though, IMFDB has grown so much since this guy's piece that I think we got the last laugh. This guy called us a "wiki-clone", but the reality is that we've now earned a permanent place in the hearts of gun owners and anyone interested in the entertainment industry.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by MT2008

In retrospect, though, IMFDB has grown so much since this guy's piece that I think we got the last laugh. This guy called us a "wiki-clone", but the reality is that we've now earned a permanent place in the hearts of gun owners and anyone interested in the entertainment industry.

How exactly has the wiki "earned a permanent place in the hearts of gun owners"? Have we hit it big in the news publications used by the gun industry yet? Do you have any links for that?

Like I said earlier, can a high-level IMFDB affiliate or staff member use that association alone to get into SHOT show or the like?

This forum clearly isn't as active as many internet gun forums are either. I know that membership has to be requested both for this wiki and this forum, but the traffic level here doesn't appear to be very high compared to that of many gun forums. Of course, not knowing the server stats, I can't know for certain just where we stand in terms of traffic to the wiki/forum.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

How exactly has the wiki "earned a permanent place in the hearts of gun owners"? Have we hit it big in the news publications used by the gun industry yet? Do you have any links for that?

Like I said earlier, can a high-level IMFDB affiliate or staff member use that association alone to get into SHOT show or the like?

This forum clearly isn't as active as many internet gun forums are either. I know that membership has to be requested both for this wiki and this forum, but the traffic level here doesn't appear to be very high compared to that of many gun forums. Of course, not knowing the server stats, I can't know for certain just where we stand in terms of traffic to the wiki/forum.

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.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

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.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

How exactly has the wiki "earned a permanent place in the hearts of gun owners"? Have we hit it big in the news publications used by the gun industry yet? Do you have any links for that?

Like I said earlier, can a high-level IMFDB affiliate or staff member use that association alone to get into SHOT show or the like?

This forum clearly isn't as active as many internet gun forums are either. I know that membership has to be requested both for this wiki and this forum, but the traffic level here doesn't appear to be very high compared to that of many gun forums. Of course, not knowing the server stats, I can't know for certain just where we stand in terms of traffic to the wiki/forum.

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.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MT2008

You gotta stop being so unnecessarily argumentative.

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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

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.)

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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.

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.