Join 3,503 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Elephant/PR Killer
March 31, 2011 2:31 AM   Subscribe

GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons has just returned from a trip to Zimbabwe and has posted a video of the killing of a "problem elephant" (graphic images). The response has been fairly predictable: outraged tweets and Facebook posts, and a very special award from PETA. With many GoDaddy customers vowing to take their business elsewhere competitor NameCheap.com has taken the opportunity witha special offer of $4.99 transfers and a donation to Save The Elephants.
posted by sycophant (181 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
Never mind the elephant. Have you seen what happens to white farmers?
posted by Yakuman at 2:33 AM on March 31, 2011


Ah, yes, this is the same guy who was advocating torture a few years ago. Not a good outfit to deal with, IMO.

I quite like NameCheap. Easy to deal with, reasonably friendly and functional website (although the interface is kind of weird in some spots), and very inexpensive.
posted by Malor at 2:36 AM on March 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Some day the unethical treatment of elephants will be eradicated. ugh
posted by amethysts at 2:39 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wasn't there a story about the killing of an elephant? Frequently assigned in English classes?
And I'm sure the best thing to do with a wild elephant is just let it loose. What could go wrong?
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 2:43 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


If the elephants need to be killed then why shouldn't he do it? God forbid that a man enjoys hunting, the activity that we evolved to depend upon for our survival for the past 30 million years or whatever.

Whether they need to be killed is debatable and I can't say for sure, but I notice that PETA recommend using chili infused string and cowbells to keep them away, which I'm sure will be a great comfort to the poor bastard that's getting his livelihood trashed.
posted by Not Supplied at 2:43 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


Ahahaha I can't believe people actually got upset over a guy hunting nuisance animals.

If only farmers could live in PEACE with the ANIMALS like the traditional ways of life! On an unrelated note, it's just terrible that Africans are starving! *has never left the suburbs*
posted by shii at 2:47 AM on March 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


RE: PETA's suggestion to scare off elephants with chili somehow: Dirty Jobs' Mike Rowe on Lamb Castration, PETA, and American Labor
posted by shii at 2:49 AM on March 31, 2011 [12 favorites]


I don't want to watch the video. What's the "problem" with the elephant and why did they need to kill it? Is this just big game hunting for rich guys by another name or is there more to it?
posted by londonmark at 2:50 AM on March 31, 2011


To me, what's really disturbing about the video is that they are slaughtering elephants while listening to AC/DC's Hell Bells. Because, I think, there are better AC/DC tunes for slaughtering elephants.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:52 AM on March 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


Hell Bells. Sorry
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:54 AM on March 31, 2011


On my next trip to the big city, I may encounter some "problem hosting providers" and action may need to be taken...
posted by greenhornet at 2:57 AM on March 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


One of the things that's most astonishing to me about this is that he, a high profile CEO, thought that posting this video was a good idea. I would hate to be working in GoDaddy's marketing department at the moment.
posted by sycophant at 3:04 AM on March 31, 2011 [17 favorites]


Actually, you know what, I've decided it doesn't matter. I can't think of an excuse for killing an endangered animal that I would be ok with, and this guy is a douche for standing back an filming it. Go PETA, go NameCheap.
posted by londonmark at 3:05 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


I got disgusted with GoDaddy six years ago, moved everything to NameCheap and never once regretted it. I can barely name five companies I have done business with for any extended period of time that I have NEVER had a complaint about, and NameCheap is one of them. They have been expanding their range of services, but INCREDIBLY have not been doing ANY of the GoDaddy-esque upselling. And NameCheap is NOT paying me to say this, because nobody ever clicks my site's affiliate link!!!
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:05 AM on March 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Pleased to hear the good feedback on NameCheap - I've shifted 8 domains there from GoDaddy, largely because of the offer (I was with GoDaddy because they were cheap). I've heard good reviews from a number of people now. I guess they're going to be the obvious winners out of this. Would love to know how many domains come over to them with this offer.
posted by sycophant at 3:10 AM on March 31, 2011


If the elephants need to be killed then why shouldn't he do it?

Because it doesn't solve the long term problems of humans encroaching onto a dangerous and endangered species' territory. If Mr. Parsons wanted to help the farmers, there are a number of worthy causes he could fund to do so. But that wouldn't allow him to wield a phallic device and act like a Big Tough Man, so he doesn't.
posted by cmonkey at 3:12 AM on March 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


cmonkey, I didn't say he was a complete altruist I said he wanted to go hunting, and as things stand someone is going to do that hunting.

Yes preserving the elephant's habitat is a worthy cause I agree with but the problems in Africa aren't going to be solved overnight by slinging money at some charity, and it's not necessarily any CEO's job to try and fix them.
posted by Not Supplied at 3:21 AM on March 31, 2011


His exact words were "It's one of the most beneficial and rewarding things I do".

a) Not beneficial to anyone.
b) Rewarding only to someone who enjoys killing things.

I think those Tweets roaming around with the #HOSTELCLIENT are perfectly accurate here.
posted by cmonkey at 3:23 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nor is it any CEO's job to go and bravely shoot elephants for local villagers. Bob Parsons is a millionaire, he could just as easily spend his money in helping the same villagers find ways to keep the elephants out of their crops that don't involve killing them.
posted by sycophant at 3:26 AM on March 31, 2011 [7 favorites]


Damn problem animals. The bloody gall of the obnoxious things! Having the temerity to exist in the same habitat as humans. Kill them all. Bunch of pests.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 3:27 AM on March 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


GoDaddy is one of those firms that make you feel a bit grimy just from visiting their site.
posted by malevolent at 3:29 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


As a former GoDaddy customer I am in no way surprised by this. Parson is just a sleazy person with a shitty company hustling shitty products with tits&ass as their primary marketing device.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 3:35 AM on March 31, 2011 [13 favorites]


What's the "problem" with the elephant and why did they need to kill it?

A problem elephant is an elephant that lives where people want to live and eats what people want to eat. Sometimes they rip up crops and other farm property. When it comes to a fight, sometimes an elephant stomps a farmer into the dirt. Farmers (especially those who were the dead guy's family and friends) see this as a bit of a problem.

All you can do to save elephants, besides moving them to existing guarded parks, is to make their current homes into even more guarded parks: buy or appropriate the land where possible, convince the locals to protect the elephants as valuable long-term co-residents and tourist attractions rather than simply as competitors for their crops, and shoot poachers.
posted by pracowity at 3:36 AM on March 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


Damn problem animals. The bloody gall of the obnoxious things! Having the temerity to exist in the same habitat as humans. Kill them all. Bunch of pests.

Seriously. We have the technology. I don't see why we don't eliminate most dangerous animals. Kill 90% of Great Whites, deadly snakes, and other pests. We're the top of the food chain and we should act like it.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:41 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Seriously. We have the technology. I don't see why we don't eliminate most dangerous animals. Kill 90% of Great Whites, deadly snakes, and other pests. We're the top of the food chain and we should act like it.

In all seriousness, we've already killed 90 per cent of them, it's the last ten per cent we're dithering over.
posted by londonmark at 3:43 AM on March 31, 2011 [15 favorites]


Pigeons. Most urban birds. JELLYFISH. most insects, but they'll be hard. Bears? I dunno. Maybe kill them all and keep samples, Noah's Arc style. Treat the world like a zoo and repopulate what is useful to us.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:49 AM on March 31, 2011


When things like this come up in the news I'm always disappointed to see heaps of scorn dumped on the guy (not that it isn't deplorable--it totally is--but one-sided condemnation does not a dialogue make) without anyone asking why he gets so much enjoyment out of killing for sport. I suspect the answer would be very revealing. Maybe too revealing, and we're all afraid to open that can of worms.
posted by howlingmonkey at 3:49 AM on March 31, 2011


Obligatory link to Orwell's essay Shooting an Elephant.
posted by verstegan at 3:55 AM on March 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


We're the top of the food chain

Actually, we're the top of the food pyramid and an important part of a healthy carnivorous breakfast. We're grrreat!

So, about elephants and other endangered species: as they become rarer and rarer, each specimen is worth more and more. When it comes to a few specimens versus six billion (and growing) humans, it's time to put the endangered animals first, even if that means a few of that sixseveneightnine... billion might need to die. (Not that it should ever have to come to that, but if it's kill another poacher or kill one of the last rhinos, the poacher needs to die.)
posted by pracowity at 3:57 AM on March 31, 2011


Elephants mourning
posted by Flashman at 3:58 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


That Orwell essay is what I was thinking of.

And yeah I imagine hunting would be like a video game times 100. I'm probably wrong.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:59 AM on March 31, 2011


When it comes to a few specimens versus six billion (and growing) humans, it's time to put the endangered animals first, even if that means a few of that sixseveneightnine... billion might need to die. (Not that it should ever have to come to that, but if it's kill another poacher or kill one of the last rhinos, the poacher needs to die.)

And people think my fear of environmental extremists is paranoid.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:02 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Whether they need to be killed is debatable and I can't say for sure

I've read that elephant tribes have been so devastated that their culture has been lost; in a normal group, the older females act as a gentling influence on the young bulls. But an awful, awful lot of them have been killed, and the elephant groups are often very young and insecure.

Combine that with the fact that they're very smart animals, and it's no shock that sometimes, the bulls figure out that people are the problem, and get vicious. With no old females to keep them in check, they start killing people and destroying property. I remember reading about one bull who was wandering around raping rhinoceroses.

This might be one of those elephants, but without more data, we can't be sure. It's also quite possible that the whole situation is a Southpark-esque "It's coming right at us!"
posted by Malor at 4:05 AM on March 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


The elephant that he ended up hitting was no old bull. It was barely older than an infant.
posted by Flashman at 4:10 AM on March 31, 2011


When it comes to a few specimens versus six billion (and growing) humans, it's time to put the endangered animals first, even if that means a few of that sixseveneightnine... billion might need to die. (Not that it should ever have to come to that, but if it's kill another poacher or kill one of the last rhinos, the poacher needs to die.)

And people think my fear of environmental extremists is paranoid.


Hunting poachers isn't extremism, it's "sport".
posted by londonmark at 4:12 AM on March 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


It's putting a lesser species above your own.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:19 AM on March 31, 2011


The elephant that he ended up hitting was no old bull.

I gather it's the young ones that go crazy, not the old ones. I called them bulls because I believe they're generally adult, but that may have given the wrong impression.
posted by Malor at 4:21 AM on March 31, 2011


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by bwg at 4:25 AM on March 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yeah, that Go Daddy CEO guy seems like a bit of a prick too, bwg.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 4:30 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


Anyone else wonder how much meat could have been distributed to the people of the villages for the price of the plane tickets to Zimbabwe Dr. Parsons purchased? (Jesus that was a long sentence.) But then we wouldn't have had the fun of watching all those poor people clamber for a chunk of bush meat.

Also, I have family that still farms and works land. Nuisance animals are an annoying problem that directly affect the livelihood of people TRYING to provide for their families, and yours. It's not an easy problem, and there aren't any glowing answers.

However, the day my uncle posts a video of his skillful hunting and butchering of a animal set to a soundtrack is the day I'd stop giving a flying fuck about how hard it is dealing with those varmints.
posted by DigDoug at 4:33 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


Lesser on what basis? Lesser able to manufacture firearms? Lesser able to profit from the senseless annihilation of a species? Lesser able to defend oneself from humans?

I have no problem putting a lesser species above my own when the the representatives of my own species are so unfit to bear the label.

In many parts of the world it is considered morally acceptable to put your property over the right to life of a person attempting to damage or steal it. I suppose you think they are extremists too?
posted by londonmark at 4:34 AM on March 31, 2011 [11 favorites]


I left GoDaddy for Namecheap after the CEO put pro-torture messages right on the front page of his company's website. This was just before all the skeevy pseudoporn commercials with Danica Patrick.
posted by dirigibleman at 4:36 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


I transferred all of my domains away from GD to NC a few years ago when it became apparent that Parsons is a world-class dickhead with a side order of douchebag that enjoyed torture . And GD's crappy, spammy, up-sale web site made it that much better to get away from them.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 4:43 AM on March 31, 2011


I've been a big fan of Hover for a while now, really great service.

Also, use the coupon code: twit (from Leo Laporte's podcast network) and you get 15% off!
posted by TravisJeffery at 4:43 AM on March 31, 2011


I hate GoDaddy for many reasons, none of which have to do with rogue elephants.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:59 AM on March 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's putting a lesser species above your own.

I see no reason why an exemplary member of a "lesser species" might be more valuable to me or society than a despicable member of a "greater species" such as my own. We jail people every day for theft or destruction of inanimate objects; it surely follows that we could value interesting lifeforms above that of property. As such, a poacher or defiler of nature surely does sufficient damage as to be worth less to me and to society such that I might value the elephant above the poacher.

Put another way: comparative scarcity is important when making these decisions. Given the choice, would you save a man's life if it meant the destruction of a house? Of course. Even if he were a huge jerk? Probably still. What if it meant the destruction of the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower? Even if he were a huge jerk? Humans are plentiful enough, and elephants rare enough, that if the human's not proving his worth to me, I'm not necessarily sure that it's the human that's more valuable.
posted by explosion at 5:02 AM on March 31, 2011 [7 favorites]


Fuck GoDaddy. NameCheap all the way. Happy customer since forever, once Bob Parsons started making himself known as Mr. Daddy. What a vile person.
posted by cavalier at 5:03 AM on March 31, 2011


I remember reading about one bull who was wandering around raping rhinoceroses.

what
posted by elizardbits at 5:04 AM on March 31, 2011


Seriously. We have the technology. I don't see why we don't eliminate most dangerous animals. Kill 90% of Great Whites, deadly snakes, and other pests. We're the top of the food chain and we should act like it.

You're serious, aren't you?

The reason why we shouldn't kill off other apex predators and megafauna is because they tend to be the moderators of an ecosystem in a number of different ways depending on the animal. Take away an apex predator like a big cat or a raptor and then you have a runaway rat or gopher problem, or too many bunnies. Too many bunnies and they eat all the grass. Then the grass dies, then the smaller animals die, then the soil dies, then the trees and then eventually you have a desert.

That's simplifying a complicated issue, but stands as an example or allegory. Even "dangerous animals" have a function. When biologists and ecologists talk about needing biodiversity to sustain healthy ecosystems, this is part of what they're talking about. In any ecosystem there are a wide variety of animals in that food chain in a delicate balance.

And that delicate balance matters - to you, personally - because we all live in that same ecosystem. Our food comes from it. You can't very well plant and grow corn or wheat in a plague of rats or in a desert.
posted by loquacious at 5:10 AM on March 31, 2011 [19 favorites]


In many parts of the world it is considered morally acceptable to put your property over the right to life of a person attempting to damage or steal it. I suppose you think they are extremists too?

Hmm. What if the endangered animal were also your property?

If governments arranged to sell endangered animals to people under special conditions -- your transferable ownership of a certain animal (electronically tagged and tracked and certified) gets you a share of the tourist income that it and its herd generates, but you have to leave the animal where it is and let it live its life undisturbed -- then would it be right for the owner to pay an armed guard to a shoot (if necessary) any poacher who was threatening the owner's investment?
posted by pracowity at 5:14 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


sycophant: One of the things that's most astonishing to me about this is that he, a high profile CEO, thought that posting this video was a good idea. I would hate to be working in GoDaddy's marketing department at the moment.

Why is that astonishing? If he thought he could get away with it (which he probably has despite the temporary outrage), and if he could trumpet what a big manly man's man he was in the process, why not? Some CEOs do worse things every day of the week before they've had breakfast.

Lovecraft in Brooklyn: We're the top of the food chain and we should act like it.

We do "act like it," and that's part of the reason the planet's going to hell in a handbasket.
posted by blucevalo at 5:14 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


elizardbits: what

Well, it looks like it was in a NY Times article on October 8, 2006. Here's a Straight Dope followup, where they did some digging, and concluded that the Times apparently cited the wrong study as evidence, but that there IS evidence of this going on. It's not certain that actual penetration is taking place, but young male elephants are definitely mounting rhinoceroses they've defeated.

A rough approximation of teabagging, perhaps?
posted by Malor at 5:14 AM on March 31, 2011


(oh, and I remembered that a bit incorrectly; it sounds like a whole tribe of elephants is doing it, rather than some twisted loner.)
posted by Malor at 5:15 AM on March 31, 2011


There are apparently people in this thread who are too stupid to understand the importance of our ecosystem even when it can literally be explained in a way a four-year-old can understand it via a 2-minute scene in The Lion King. These are people who might want to take a day off and hit up NetFlix before trying to converse here anymore.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:18 AM on March 31, 2011 [23 favorites]


Switching away from GD tonight. Should have done it a very long time ago, just never knew who to go with. Now I do. Thanks for this thread!
posted by Malice at 5:26 AM on March 31, 2011


I talked the non-profit that I work with into taking our web hosting off of Go-Daddy for a local little hosting company just because of asshole stuff like this. Not sure how pissing people off is a good business plan.
posted by octothorpe at 5:27 AM on March 31, 2011


Damn I just checked on GoDaddy, and elephantmurderer.com is taken, but elephantmurderer.me is available at the sale price of $8.99!
posted by Elmore at 5:28 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


God forbid that a man enjoys hunting, the activity that we evolved to depend upon for our survival for the past 30 million years or whatever.

The above is one of those ridiculous over-romanticizations a lot of hunters seem prone to. From what I recall of my anthro major days, studies of hunting-gathering societies show that the gathering activities of women usually account for upwards of 80% of the caloric intake of the group (Inuit probably being the notable exception). Hunting is a small supplement at best. We mostly "evolved to depend upon" eating plants "for the past 30 million years."
posted by mediareport at 5:29 AM on March 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


We mostly "evolved to depend upon" eating plants "for the past 30 million years."

Derail: this month's National Geographic Magazine has an article on how the fact that humans domesticated annual grains has led to a bunch of problems.

Oh, and it's not 30 million years.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 5:34 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


it sounds like a whole tribe of elephants is doing it, rather than some twisted loner

That is slightly less horrible than my vision of a serial rapist elephant. BUT STILL.
posted by elizardbits at 5:37 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


BBizarrely, PETA.org is registered through GoDaddy. Someone should send them $5 for the NameCheap deal. :-)
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 5:39 AM on March 31, 2011 [9 favorites]


studies of hunting-gathering societies show that the gathering activities of women usually account for upwards of 80% of the caloric intake of the group (Inuit probably being the notable exception). Hunting is a small supplement at best.

Yes, these are not paleolithic people but hunter gatherers living in the depleted of game lands of post neolithic countries.

Anyway, it's not important to the point how much they did it. They weren't elephant hugging vegetarians that's for sure.

Part of women's gathering was killing small animals.
posted by Not Supplied at 5:41 AM on March 31, 2011


it sounds like a whole tribe of elephants is doing it, rather than some twisted loner

That is slightly less horrible than my vision of a serial rapist elephant. BUT STILL.


Yeh Dave was doing it and all the lads and I just thought why not you know? She wasn't my usual type, but you know how it is when you've had a few drinks.
posted by Not Supplied at 5:44 AM on March 31, 2011


That is slightly less horrible than my vision of a serial rapist elephant.

I am not comforted to know there is a whole gang of them.
posted by londonmark at 5:48 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ok. I get it, elephants are big and cute. But let's not act like the question of how to deal with animals near human populations is always that settled. In the States animals get "controlled" all the time just cause black or brown people live near tigers and elephants and sharks doesn't mean their homes, commerce, cities etc are singularly problematic
posted by the mad poster! at 5:55 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


BBizarrely, PETA.org is registered through GoDaddy.

Not anymore: "PETA is canceling our account with Go Daddy and taking our domain-name business elsewhere—and we're asking everyone to do the same."
posted by pracowity at 5:58 AM on March 31, 2011


Not anymore: "PETA is canceling our account with Go Daddy and taking our domain-name business elsewhere—and we're asking everyone to do the same."

Would it be too much to wish that PETA would just cancel themselves? They are as much zero-class-acts as Parsons is.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 6:00 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Thanks sycophant, I wouldn't have heard about the Namecheap offer if it wasn't for this post. I just transferred my GoDaddy domain to Namecheap.
posted by exhilaration at 6:03 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Would it be too much to wish that PETA would just cancel themselves? They are as much zero-class-acts as Parsons is.


Oh, awesome! We haven't had a derail about PETA and what douches/nondouches they are for at least three days!
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:11 AM on March 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


One of the things that's most astonishing to me about this is that he, a high profile CEO, thought that posting this video was a good idea.

That there is the first problem, CEOs rarely think.
posted by Fizz at 6:15 AM on March 31, 2011


Who the hell invited the Karamazov Brothers into this debate?
posted by spicynuts at 6:19 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


We kill problem animals here every day. Sometimes they are problems because there are just too many (deer in east coast suburbs, say) and there are no apex predators; sometimes it is a rarer animal that starts threatening people (say, a bear that attacks a hiker). So I think we are simplifying this event because it is far away and we have no attachment to the people having their property and lives threatened.

The CEO sounds like a total dick, though, elephants aside.
posted by Forktine at 6:20 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


EasyDNS has – againtaken a principled stand.
posted by joeclark at 6:21 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am not at all defending the actions of this CEO and GoDaddy.com but if I had to take my business to another place every time some asshole higher up made a poor ethical decision, I'd have no where to take my business to.
posted by Fizz at 6:21 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


And yeah I imagine hunting would be like a video game times 100.

Except it's frequently cold, rainy and you often sit there for hours and don't see anything.
posted by electroboy at 6:22 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


That there is the first problem, CEOs rarely think.

CEOs tend to have at least a bachelor's degree and an MBA. They may not be thoughtful, but they aren't cabbages. And even then, there's a difference between "I want to shoot an elephant/do a bunch of rails/ embark on a leveraged buyout LIKE A BOSS" and "Now I've shot Babar, I feel like I should share that moment with the Internet. Those guys are famous for weighing things up carefully, especially when it comes to animals. Oh, yeah, and I must get my cat declawed."

Seriously. We have the technology. I don't see why we don't eliminate most dangerous animals. Kill 90% of Great Whites, deadly snakes, and other pests. We're the top of the food chain and we should act like it.

We have the technology to wipe out animals, absolutely. We are using it every day. However, we are not as a species advanced enough to regulate an entire ecosystem. This can be demonstrated both by the absence of flowers on the Moon and the presence of hunger on Earth.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:24 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


(That's CEOs of BigCorp, obviously, not necessarily the CEO of a startup.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:25 AM on March 31, 2011


We kill problem animals here every day. Sometimes they are problems because there are just too many (deer in east coast suburbs, say) and there are no apex predators; sometimes it is a rarer animal that starts threatening people (say, a bear that attacks a hiker). So I think we are simplifying this event because it is far away and we have no attachment to the people having their property and lives threatened.

Ah yes, the 'danger to the public' argument. I'm surprised it hasn't come up sooner. We destroy huge swathes of natural habitat to build endless suburbs, roads, farmland, indistrual estates and pipelines, and when an animal has the misfortune to stumble onto our newly acquired territory we feel smugly justified in killing it. Clearly, nature should learn not to get in our way.
posted by londonmark at 6:35 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fizz, I know you're rolling devil's advocate there, but you really should google up on Bob Parsons before you pardon him for one bad decision. For some people this just reinforces their opinion, but for others it's the last straw sort of thing.
posted by cavalier at 6:37 AM on March 31, 2011


Pigeons. Most urban birds. JELLYFISH. most insects, but they'll be hard. Bears? I dunno. Maybe kill them all and keep samples, Noah's Arc style. Treat the world like a zoo and repopulate what is useful to us.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:49 AM on March 31 [+] [!]


Trolls. You forgot to mention trolls darling.
posted by i_cola at 6:40 AM on March 31, 2011 [15 favorites]



I am not at all defending the actions of this CEO and GoDaddy.com but if I had to take my business to another place every time some asshole higher up made a poor ethical decision, I'd have no where to take my business to.


I understand that, but some bad decisions really speak for themselves. What if he had beat up a gay man because he was gay? That's the kind of bad decision that would make me take my business elsewhere. Same as this one.
posted by Malice at 6:42 AM on March 31, 2011


I have no problem with culling or killing animals for a reason.

But, this is Bob Parsons + Zimbabwe. I'm sure the money he drops in Zimbabwe (and probably into Mugabe's pockets) each year means there will always be an elephant classified as a "nuisance" right about the time Parsons boards his flight.
posted by dripdripdrop at 6:43 AM on March 31, 2011 [11 favorites]


Ok. I get it, elephants are big and cute. But let's not act like the question of how to deal with animals near human populations is always that settled. In the States animals get "controlled" all the time just cause black or brown people live near tigers and elephants and sharks doesn't mean their homes, commerce, cities etc are singularly problematic

In the US (and pretty much everywhere else most of the time), endangered animals are protected fairly well given the constraints imposed upon the parks by politicians doing what rich guys tell them to do. A dangerous endangered animal near people is generally captured (maybe tranquilized) and moved to somewhere safe for it and people if possible, and is killed only when there's nothing else they can do that won't leave people in significant danger, such as when certain bears repeatedly come into campsites, rip into cars and tents, and come pretty close to eating someone's face. Theoretically, the US could do a better job of separating animals from people -- parks ought to be a lot more wilderness and a lot less beer-guzzling dufus on an ATV or snowmobile -- but I suppose the parks do the best they can considering how powerful the dufus-on-an-ATV lobby is and how few bears actually vote.

When they have to kill the animal, an animal control officer in the US and elsewhere does it as part of his or her job and probably doesn't like to do it. What you don't typically see is some rich foreigner show up all safari style with his guns and trusty animal trackers and interpreters and pith helmet to kill the animal as a trophy, because an animal that must be destroyed could and should already have been destroyed by the local animal control officer. Why did they wait for the great white hunter to show up in Zimbabwe before having the "dangerous" animal destroyed? It looks to me like Parsons slipped some tasty piles of foreign currency to various Zimbabwean government officials in exchange for the right to shoot the most bothersome elephant they could find.
posted by pracowity at 6:50 AM on March 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


For some people this just reinforces their opinion, but for others it's the last straw sort of thing.

I completely understand this "last straw sort of thing". Sometimes you have to say, enough is enough and take your business elsewhere. Sometimes it's an ethical/social decision, more often it's service oriented. This sounds awful but sometimes ignorance is bliss. If we really looked at where we send all of our money, and the ethics behind the big business we support, I think we'd all be disgusted with ourselves.
posted by Fizz at 6:54 AM on March 31, 2011


How convenient. It just so happens that I have about a dozen domain names to buy or renew in the next couple weeks, and a long-standing meh toward GoDaddy.

Now my MEH has turned into a giant UGH.

And thanks to the recommendations of people in this thread, I know about NameCheap.

So in my opinion, Bob Parsons timed his little hunting trip perfectly.
posted by crackingdes at 6:55 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


Damn I just checked on GoDaddy, and elephantmurderer.com is taken

I really really really hope somebody didn't go out and pay GoDaddy $8.99 for the opportunity to make that particular statement.
posted by kingbenny at 6:57 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


FYI, if you're looking to renew, I've had good luck with Gandhi.net.
posted by geoff. at 7:01 AM on March 31, 2011


When they have to kill the animal, an animal control officer in the US and elsewhere does it as part of his or her job and probably doesn't like to do it.

No I totally understand that convenient hunting isn't the way to go about it ideally. But I was thinking in a pretty general way (specially considering things like 'rogue tigers' that get put down) sometimes we aren't even dealing with places that have the tax base for huge national parks, state of the art animal control etc. Sometimes people are being killed in the outskirts and the gov't takes care of the predator. You're right that trophy-killing isn't generally nor should be encouraged
posted by the mad poster! at 7:08 AM on March 31, 2011


Registrant:
Visionera, Inc.

915 Park View St
Castle Rock, Colorado 80104
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ELEPHANTMURDERER.COM
Created on: 31-Mar-11
Expires on: 31-Mar-12
Last Updated on: 31-Mar-11
What kind of chucklehead makes a protest domain and buys it through the outfit he's protesting?
posted by cavalier at 7:16 AM on March 31, 2011 [9 favorites]


The real problem here is how proudly he is framing his participation. There is obviously no moment taken to consider this might be offensive to some people. If he wants to hunt problem elephant and feels doing so is a valuable contribution, then let him do so...in private. For him to post this video and talk about how rewarding it is (and we aren't even going to discuss how problematic it is for a white man to feel that being responsible for the food supply of a large group of Africans is his proudest moment) suggests that he almost wants to bait animal rights supporters.

"Hey...boss...don't you think some people might find this video offensive?"

"What the hell is there to be offended about? I mean shit. I'm protecting crops and feeding a bunch of Africans. What the hell else could anybody want out of me? Jesus!"

"I just mean the images of the elephant. Won't that offend some people?"

"Fuck 'em. Someone's going to be pissed no matter what I do. So fuck 'em. In fact...make sure millions of people see the video. Buncha cry-baby liberals ain't doin shit for the poor. I donate more time and money to feeding Africans than the whole lot of 'em. I'm a God to those people over them. Fuckin' liberals. Fuck 'em."

THAT is the problem with this video.

The problem with what this video is depicting can be discussed next.
posted by jefficator at 7:23 AM on March 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


What kind of chucklehead makes a protest domain and buys it through the outfit he's protesting?

I'm guessing the marketing department at GoDaddy did that. Y'know, to avoid people creating a real website at that address.
posted by chavenet at 7:25 AM on March 31, 2011


What kind of chucklehead makes a protest domain and buys it through the outfit he's protesting?

Maybe Bob Parsons did this so he could keep it away from someone else.
posted by Fizz at 7:25 AM on March 31, 2011


loquacious: "Even "dangerous animals" have a function."

Exactly.

And human beings, of course, are the most dangerous.
posted by bwg at 7:25 AM on March 31, 2011


Or maybe not. Elephantmurderer.com.

Go ahead, click.
posted by chavenet at 7:26 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fuck that guy for making PETA look reasonable.
posted by ob at 7:27 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


And human beings, of course, are the most dangerous.

the most dangerous ... game.
posted by chavenet at 7:30 AM on March 31, 2011


So, I have a domain there that expires May 17, and it's really, really important that the name is not lost... Should I just, for safety's sake, go ahead and renew there before transferring?

I have two others there that I just renewed last month, but I'm going to transfer them anyway, and eat it. It's been criminal laziness/forgetfulness that I haven't already transferred all of them out of there.

...................................................

Does this guy not have shareholders? I would not be a happy camper if I were one. I mean, maybe all the torture-loving, animal-killing, woman-objectifying domain buyers are flocking there in their hordes, but overall I don't see how this isn't a net negative. Why trust a guy who puts his ego over the welfare of his business?
posted by taz at 7:31 AM on March 31, 2011


taz, you'll be fine, just start the transfer now. You can usually do it in a day or two; with six weeks to go, it'll be smooth as silk.
posted by Malor at 7:37 AM on March 31, 2011


I just want to thank you for this post again. I really needed a kick in the butt to transfer out of GoDaddy and feel a huge weight lifted off of my shoulders having done it.
posted by Malice at 8:15 AM on March 31, 2011


Thank you so much for this post. I had an inkling that the CEO was a douchebag but was not aware of the extent of the problem. I am so completely out of there.
posted by scarabic at 8:24 AM on March 31, 2011


We just hate it when rich, absurdly privileged assholes act like what they are!
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:29 AM on March 31, 2011


Just transfered (4) domains from GoDaddy. I'm so sick of hearing about this douche Parsons, and I have no interest in financing his sexist corporate marketing plan, his personal Tea party-esque rhetoric and savage globe-trotting lifestyle.

It's like he's been daring me to transfer.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:36 AM on March 31, 2011


Been using GoDaddy for years, never had a problem with their service (or prices). Not a fan of the "sexy" ads, but since I don't watch sports, doesn't really bother me.
posted by davidmsc at 8:37 AM on March 31, 2011


TV commercials? Sexist/pandering/stupid. Public website? Plastered with ads, confusing. Backend control panels? Inexplicably byzantine.

As a web developer I occasionally help clients hosted with GoDaddy and I dread interacting with their systems. I have nothing positive thing to say about the service, other than I've not had any clients have catastrophic data loss, just terrible downtime. I'm not even thinking of the CEO's personality, or how he thinks about prisoners or elephants. Luckily I haven't had to touch any GoDaddy systems for a year, so that's a positive.

Unfortunately, because of their television advertising, they will continue as a popular service, because no other hosting company has cultivated mindshare as they have. I suspect a boycott won't hurt them. We seem stuck with GoDaddy as the low-cost, "simple" webhosting and domain solution.
posted by artlung at 8:46 AM on March 31, 2011


What's wrong with being sexy?
posted by Flashman at 8:48 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Damn problem animals. The bloody gall of the obnoxious things! Having the temerity to exist in the same habitat as humans. Kill them all. Bunch of pests.

I know, Right? Fucking millionaire CEOs, it seems like every day you hear some horror story of them wandering into a populated area and just destroying people's lives, the economy and the very infrastructure itself. They say it's blind instinct, but to my eyes it is just naked animal aggression.

I don't want to advocate for such a harsh solution as open season, but there definitely should be some sort of restriction on how much interaction they are allowed to have in areas with large human habitations.
posted by quin at 8:49 AM on March 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


What's wrong with being sexy?

Come on man. What does a women dressed as an officer stripping on a car windshield have to do with selling domains. Why is it only women who're the sex objects in their ads. It's just not something you wanna support culturally
posted by the mad poster! at 8:56 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm guessing the marketing department at GoDaddy did that. Y'know, to avoid people creating a real website at that address.

I'm guessing you invent conspiracy theories on a regular basis.
posted by Avenger50 at 9:15 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Be sure to check out Bob Parson's personal blog ... and the comments people are leaving there about his elephant video.

Example:
"Wow Bob, you are a hero! Shooting evil elephants to feed starving Africans. Why work with the villages to drill wells for clean water, build school, and develop sustainable farming practices when you can pop a few elephants and have a giant BBQ. Your leadership and clear vision puts you right up there with the captain of the Titanic."
posted by ericb at 9:17 AM on March 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


Anyway, it's not important to the point how much they did it.

The point is that you seriously overstated the evolutionary importance of hunting in primate evolution over the last 30 million years. Almost all of the evidence we can put together, from examination of fossil teeth to studies of existing primate and hunting/gathering societies points to a diet vastly more dependent on plant food than meat, let alone actual hunting.

We don't have any other issue than that between us. Just stop overstating the case.
posted by mediareport at 9:17 AM on March 31, 2011


The problem with hunting poachers for hunting elephants -- putting aside the questionable morality -- is that virtually all of the countries in which African elephants reside do not have the death penalty. Therefore, if you plan and commit an act of murder, you will be judged by a jury of your peers and given a lengthy prison sentence. If, on the other hand, you are found in a protected area acting funny, you will be shot on sight. No trial, no jury. It's the same problem with the death penalty anywhere -- even if you think that a justly-handled system is morally correct, the system for enacting it is always unjust.

And trust me, if you have the resources to be posting on Metafilter on a Thursday morning in March, your impact on the earth is many orders of magnitude greater than anybody trying to scratch out a living in the near-deserts of Zimbabwe. If you are that concerned with environmental degradation that you would willingly trade human life for the sake of the planet, you ought to start with your own. The ecological and environmental benefits would be far greater than shooting a hungry person in Africa. Your logic is fascist in the worst sense.
posted by one_bean at 9:19 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ahahaha I can't believe people actually got upset over a guy hunting nuisance animals.

Nuisance is relative. I could call you a nuisance, then would it be ok to hunt you? If you think humans own the earth then I guess your reasoning makes sense in your own limited mind.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:20 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Your logic is fascist in the worst sense.

Oh yeah, that's the most extreme fascism I've ever heard.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:22 AM on March 31, 2011


This thread needs to be tagged "charismatic megafauna."

I've got a bunch of domains registered with GoDaddy and would like to switch. The "special offer" link in the post doesn't open for me. Is it $4.99 for each domain?
posted by muckster at 9:23 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Every year by virtue of my great wealth a "problem" elephant is found for me to kill.
posted by pianomover at 9:31 AM on March 31, 2011


Muckster, it's $4.99 per domain, with free WhoIsGuard. You have to create a profile and enter in purchase code 'BYEBYEGD' when ordering.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:31 AM on March 31, 2011


They are also including free 'PositiveSSL' for every domain registered or transferred. Offer ends today. In a few hours, to be exact.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:33 AM on March 31, 2011


Damn problem animals. The bloody gall of the obnoxious things! Having the temerity to exist in the same habitat as humans. Kill them all. Bunch of pests.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:27 on March 31 [2 favorites +] [!]


Damn problem farmers. The bloody gall of the obnoxious things! Having the temerity to try to support himself and his family in the same habitat as elephants. Let them all go bankrupt. Bunch of pests.
posted by blue collar orc at 9:38 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]



Damn problem farmers. The bloody gall of the obnoxious things! Having the temerity to try to support himself and his family in the same habitat as elephants. Let them all go bankrupt. Bunch of pests.


Therein lies the problem. They're not trying to exist with the elephants. They're trying to get rid of them. I've actually researched this a lot and from what I understand, it's the poaching that has gotten them to act the way they are acting (the elephants), by destroying their family groups. More killing is not the solution to the problem, but the farmers naturally want a quick solution, only thinking about themselves.

It's hard to think about others when your livelihood is at stake. That doesn't make what they are doing right, or acceptable in any way.
posted by Malice at 9:46 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Muckster, it's $4.99 per domain, with free WhoIsGuard. You have to create a profile and enter in purchase code 'BYEBYEGD' when ordering.

You know, I was all ready to be all, like, "stay classy, NameCheap". But then... dude shot an elephant.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:58 AM on March 31, 2011


Ok. I get it, elephants are big and cute.

They're also one of the very few animals with a demonstrated sense of self-identity, along with primates, dolphins and whales. You put a mirror in front of a dog or a cat, they think they see another dog or cat there. You put a mirror in front of an elephant, and they recognize that they're seeing themselves in the mirror and act accordingly.

There is a thought in there that says "I am an elephant." That is worth protecting.
posted by mightygodking at 10:12 AM on March 31, 2011 [10 favorites]


In the middle of Africa: poor black farmers that no one has ever seen, automatically thought of as a danger to biodiversity as they have to kill/slash/burn farm enough to survive. The elephant is given higher priority.

In the middle of America: rich (comparatively) white farmers are given a free pass to shoot endangered wolves because they're a threat to continued profits. Also, dangerous to humans and Red Riding Hood and all things holy. Because, you know, wolves. Dastardly predators trying to settle back on their old lands.

On the subject of PETA: Any group lacking the nuance to distinguish valuable medical research (which probably saved their diabetic parents fifty years ago) from cock fighting shouldn't be given the time of day. I will totally be okay with them fronting money for more nude cat girl models in cages though. This can continue.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:16 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Anyway, it's not important to the point how much they did it.

The point is that you seriously overstated the evolutionary importance of hunting in primate evolution over the last 30 million years. Almost all of the evidence we can put together, from examination of fossil teeth to studies of existing primate and hunting/gathering societies points to a diet vastly more dependent on plant food than meat, let alone actual hunting.

We don't have any other issue than that between us. Just stop overstating the case.


mediareport, I'm quite familiar with literature on paleolithic eating and there's many entirely respectable scientists who believe the opposite that we ate a meat based diet and they have fossil evidence to the contrary and I'm sure different interpretations of the same evidence. There's no point in arguing or posting studies as I'm fully aware that there are studies there that support both views. No there's no 'problem' between us, but you seem to want to hammer home your view though and if I don't agree with it...well I don't agree with it.

It doesn't affects what I said. Chimpanzees do eat a largely plant based diet, but they have strong instincts for cooperatively hunting with weapons, so if for the sake of argument we were similar to them we'd still have a drive to hunt. I do happen to think this guys a dick anyway, but I won't attack him or act shocked for wanting to hunt and kill an animal like we're supposed to be on another plane. If he's bribing people to supply animals that were never a problem then that is shitty.
posted by Not Supplied at 10:18 AM on March 31, 2011


What's wrong with being sexy?

Come on man. What does a women dressed as an officer stripping on a car windshield have to do with selling domains. Why is it only women who're the sex objects in their ads. It's just not something you wanna support culturally


i think he was quoting This Is Spinal Tap
posted by shakespeherian at 10:18 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


We can all argue for years about whether animals are as important as people, but the issue here is about some rich asshole hunting big game for sport, and that's something I can never support. There's no justification for it, whether it's Palin shooting wolves or this godaddy pig shooting elephants.
posted by Liquidwolf at 10:32 AM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


I've known that the guy was a douchebag for forever, but for whatever reason this finally pushes me over the edge... EPP Provided. Queued for Transfer.
posted by togdon at 11:00 AM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


mediareport, I'm quite familiar with literature on paleolithic eating and there's many entirely respectable scientists who believe the opposite that we ate a meat based diet and they have fossil evidence to the contrary and I'm sure different interpretations of the same evidence. There's no point in arguing or posting studies as I'm fully aware that there are studies there that support both views. No there's no 'problem' between us, but you seem to want to hammer home your view though and if I don't agree with it...well I don't agree with it.

But it doesn't really matter how much people hunted in tribal times because that was then and this is now. With a smaller population and without modern weaponry, the ecosystem could handle even a pretty significant amount of hunting. There's a big difference between risking your life to go out hunting with a spear and shooting an animal at 300 yards from the comfort of your SUV, and there's a lot more of us and a lot fewer wild areas. Hunting doesn't scale.

It doesn't affects what I said. Chimpanzees do eat a largely plant based diet, but they have strong instincts for cooperatively hunting with weapons, so if for the sake of argument we were similar to them we'd still have a drive to hunt. I do happen to think this guys a dick anyway, but I won't attack him or act shocked for wanting to hunt and kill an animal like we're supposed to be on another plane. If he's bribing people to supply animals that were never a problem then that is shitty.

I'm certainly not shocked, but I do expect better from my fellow man than acting like Chimpanzees. A man who runs a large piece of infrastructure that is a part of the largest information sharing network in the known universe really is supposed to be on another plane, or at least try harder to act like he is. Running a large web host and registrar is some pretty technologically advanced stuff, relatively speaking, and part of being technologically advanced is using your knowledge to guide your behavior. Humans have the ability to know that elephants are critically endangered, and with that knowledge comes the responsibility to avoid shooting them unless there's a damn good reason.
posted by zachlipton at 11:03 AM on March 31, 2011


Last straw for me. I've just put it off because I'm incredibly lazy and I've felt bad about that for years, but this is it. Ive had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more. Fuck you, Bob Parsons. All my domains are coming up for renewal and I'm switching over to another host. I just have to decide if it's Gandi, Hover, Fabulous or NameCheap.

This guy is an asshole of epic proportions. This makes me sick to death.
posted by perilous at 11:23 AM on March 31, 2011


And yeah I imagine hunting would be like a video game times 100.

Except it's frequently cold, rainy and you often sit there for hours and don't see anything.


Kind of like that new Jurassic Park Theme Park ride. "Umm you do plan on having dinosaurs on your dinosaur tour right, umm hello, is this thing on."
posted by Fizz at 11:30 AM on March 31, 2011


GoDaddy—with Parsons as their figurehead—is the drunken, privileged fratboy of registrars.

Pro-torture op-eds.
Almost porn to peddle domain names (I can't even name the times I've heard someone asks "what does GoDaddy do?" after seeing their scummy TV ads).
Vanity videos of hunting elephants.

I mean, it's even named GoDaddy. You couldn't come up with a more old boy's club, patriarchal name for a registrar if you did it on purpose. Yes, GoDaddy. Go Daddy. Go the fuck away.
posted by defenestration at 11:33 AM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


And yeah I imagine hunting would be like a video game times 100.

Except it's frequently cold, rainy and you often sit there for hours and don't see anything.


Also; in a video game, nothing (particularly no self-aware, endangered animals) have to die for your entertainment.

(Note: I'm not actually against hunting in general, I'm against hunting elephants and other intelligent, vanishing animals, and this asshole in particular.)
posted by quin at 11:36 AM on March 31, 2011


Does this guy not have shareholders?

GoDaddy is privately held. "Parsons is founder and sole investor in the Go Daddy Group."* Go Daddy filed for an IPO in 2006, but later cancelled it.
posted by ericb at 12:08 PM on March 31, 2011


ah. Thanks, ericb. Well, I've transferred my stragglers, and feel *so* relieved that I've finally done it; I'm amazed how much cumulative effort on GoDaddy's part it took to overcome my natural inertia. As others have said here, I've been meaning to do it for years, and I suck that way. :(

It may not be a big deal for them – however many of us transferred our accounts, but it will be the ungift that keeps on ungiving, since so many of us also influence or directly handle the registrations of others.
posted by taz at 12:35 PM on March 31, 2011


In the middle of America: rich (comparatively) white farmers are given a free pass to shoot endangered wolves because they're a threat to continued profits. Also, dangerous to humans and Red Riding Hood and all things holy.

For the record, this also frequently outrages me and I do what I can to prevent it by writing and donating accordingly. If he shot a wolf and expressed his 'vacation' the same way, I'd do the exact same thing.
posted by Malice at 12:46 PM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the responses. Namecheap doesn't seem to be able to transfer my .de domains, and their support is down. Not a good sign.
posted by muckster at 12:47 PM on March 31, 2011


There's a big difference between risking your life to go out hunting with a spear and shooting an animal at 300 yards from the comfort of your SUV, and there's a lot more of us and a lot fewer wild areas. Hunting doesn't scale.

It doesn't have to. The number of people hunting is on the decline for a variety of reasons, although most people don't agree why.
posted by electroboy at 12:58 PM on March 31, 2011


Been using GoDaddy for years, never had a problem with their service (or prices). Not a fan of the "sexy" ads, but since I don't watch sports, doesn't really bother me.
posted by davidmsc


Oh please. You've never had a problem with their service? I'm guessing you mean they've never lost one of your domains. Because by any other standard Godaddy is an awful registrar.

Namecheap, gandi, Hover, probably 10 others that I haven't tried are far better registrars than Godaddy. Maybe you don't care about the whole torture thing, or the CEO killing an elephant and claiming he's doing it to 'help', or you don't care about the sexism in their ads (a Godaddy ad I heard yesterday started out with danica patrick saying "a lot of guys want to know how to get in my trunk...", but the constant upsale, the garish, awful website...

The other day I was trying to transfer one of my last godaddy domains to another registrar and I couldn't find the authorization code. I've dealt with domains since 98 and I had to go to a help section at ANOTHER registrar to find out how to find the code at Godaddy. I also have several domains at gandi. When I logon, on the very first page, staring me in the face, is my the authorization code I would need to transfer my domain away from gandi. So gandi makes it easy as pie to transfer your domain away, godaddy hopes you'll give up.

And while godaddy use to have the cheapest prices (the only reason I used them in the first place) that's not the case any longer. And those that are a few dollars more give you features like domain privacy included which godaddy does not.

Bottom line, godaddy is an awful service, and if you think differently you either don't know what else is out there or you're glutton for punishment. There's simply no reason, with other choices out there, to use godaddy.
posted by justgary at 1:05 PM on March 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


I switched my 15 domains from GoDaddy to Namecheap roughly a year ago and never looked back. I can personally recommend those guys (Namecheap). BTW - google "namecheap coupon codes" before you purchase to save 20% or so. Namecheap has great service and is a fast and reliable host.

Transferring a domain from GoDaddy to Namecheap takes about 24 hours (usually 4-6 really) and you can do it form your Godaddy control panel.

I was tired of giving my money to tight wing nut jobs.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:34 PM on March 31, 2011


I too have been too lazy to transfer my domains away from GoDaddy for years. I usually haven't decided to keep most domains until the day they expire. But this latest bout of assholery reminds me a month and a half in advance that I can change. And at $4.99/domain including privacy seals it for me.

What sucks is Name Cheap's site is going slooooow right now.
posted by birdherder at 1:44 PM on March 31, 2011


I think we killed NameCheap. :( They weren't prepared for MetaFilter traffic I suppose.
posted by Malice at 2:28 PM on March 31, 2011


I would hate to be working in GoDaddy's marketing department at the moment.

I'm sure they're mostly scar tissue and Tums.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:33 PM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Clearly, nature should learn not to get in our way.

Well, yes. Why should it be the reverse?
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 2:36 PM on March 31, 2011


My experience with GoDaddy.com was pretty wretched, so anybody who moves to a new registrar is likely to be in for a pleasant surprise.
posted by theora55 at 2:41 PM on March 31, 2011


Lovecraft in Brooklyn, I get where you're coming from. Nature is pretty annoying a lot of the time. But so are people, and I'm not going to argue for the systematic extinction of jocks, hipsters and young people. just because sharing watering holes with them is awkward and occasionally dangerous. We can't just wipe out everything that inconveniences or disconcerts us. It would have regrettable consequences.
posted by running order squabble fest at 2:45 PM on March 31, 2011


My experience with GoDaddy.com was pretty wretched,

Absolutely. Everything about GoDaddy is complicated and confusing. Their entire interface is designed to make you accidentally pay for something you don't really want. You can never find anything you are looking for, and their SQL servers are slow as balls.
posted by Malice at 2:46 PM on March 31, 2011


I think we killed NameCheap. :( They weren't prepared for MetaFilter traffic I suppose.

Or maybe it was Reddit or the scads of other sites that killed it. The site is back alive now and going along fast.
posted by birdherder at 2:52 PM on March 31, 2011


There are apparently people in this thread who are too stupid to understand the importance of our ecosystem even when it can literally be explained in a way a four-year-old can understand it via a 2-minute scene in The Lion King.

And under the influence of the Lion King, there are people who believe in ecological fairy tales we tell to 4-year olds, that ecosystems are inherently balanced, harmonious things and catastrophes only happen because of human "external" meddling, as if species extinctions began with human civilization. This is particularly ironic, given how often we hear how there is no "away" or "outside" where we can throw our waste. Isn't the view of human beings as external to the circle of life the ultimate anti-ecological notion? And isn't this just repeating the basic logic of those who believe we can take advantage of natural resources without limits - since we are external (or nature is external to us), whatever happens in nature cannot really hurt us.

The flawed assumption is the same, the only debate is whether we can encroach on nature with impunity, or whether we should enter the realm of nature carefully and with proper respect, as if that guarantees anything. In fact, human-caused catastrophe is only a subcategory of nature-caused catastrophe - rather than being inherently balanced, ecosystems are inherently prone to destabilization from all kinds of contingencies, from meteorites to industrial pollution. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about our ecological impacts - on the contrary, that's why we should be concerned about them.
posted by AlsoMike at 3:28 PM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Huh. I'm teaching Orwell's "Shooting An Elephant" in my classes starting next Monday. I guess if any of my students ask me why this is relevant, I can just bring in this story. (Of course my other essay is about radiation in Japan. Sigh.)
posted by ilana at 4:23 PM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Argh, Namecheap doesn't accept .de transfers. Now what? Stay on as GoDaddy's last disgruntled customer?
posted by muckster at 4:32 PM on March 31, 2011


An already infamous wingnut blowhard boss of a notoriously shitty company does something to confirm his self-image as the reincarnation of Papa Hemingway?

Next you'll be telling me that Dov Charney is weird towards women.
posted by holgate at 4:53 PM on March 31, 2011


Transferred my $180/year to Hover. Suck it, "Doctor" Bob.
posted by mark242 at 5:14 PM on March 31, 2011


One of the things that's most astonishing to me about this is that he, a high profile CEO, thought that posting this video was a good idea.

Really? Who do you think makes up the elite membership of Safari Club International, an organisation that makes me wish I believed in a retributive afterlife?
posted by holgate at 5:16 PM on March 31, 2011


GoDaddy.com, now with more GUN!
posted by localhuman at 5:23 PM on March 31, 2011


Really? Who do you think makes up the elite membership of Safari Club International, an organisation that makes me wish I believed in a retributive afterlife?

On March 17, 2005 the second Bush administration appointed Matthew J. Hogan, the former chief lobbyist for Safari Club International, as the Acting Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.


What is this, I don't even..
posted by Malice at 5:35 PM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Having finally watched the video I am nauseous and disgusted by those orange GoDaddy.com hats.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:55 PM on March 31, 2011


Re: Hunting is human nature.

I always think of a line from "African Queen." (Say it in a Kate Hepburn voice)

"Human nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put here to rise above."
posted by Trochanter at 6:16 PM on March 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


I was with Dotster for years but was never thrilled with their slow service responses. This thread was perfect, even though I wasn't with GoDaddy.

Transferred all my domains as well.
posted by bwg at 6:17 PM on March 31, 2011


muckster: Check Joker.com. They're in Europe, and a Tier 1 DNS provider, running root servers themselves. Their website, when I was last using it, was obviously made by geeks... it was a bit ugly, and not as friendly as some I've seen. But their infrastructure is incredibly good, world-class stuff. From what I could see from the outside, it looked like they were pretty close to being on-par with Verisign for service quality.
posted by Malor at 7:35 PM on March 31, 2011


dude may be a douchebag, but that may not be the whole story. i was in zimbabwe just a few months ago where the discussion of culling came up quite a bit in discussion with locals, since it's widely practiced in some parks where the protected status of elephants has led to overpopulation and subsequently, destruction of valuable habitat for other struggling species. elephants aren't endangered everywhere (africa is NOT monolithic) and in some many overpopulation has led to environmental destruction. allowing hunting is just one way to address the 'problem', though i'm not going to bother arguing the morality of such an endeavor. some argue that zimbabweans really (really!) need the tourism dollars and allowing wealthy westerners to get rid of a perceived 'problem' works out for everyone involved (except the elephant).
posted by ch3ch2oh at 9:18 PM on March 31, 2011


Muckster, gandi.net is also great (via my personal experience and reputation).
posted by taz at 10:12 PM on March 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


ch3ch2oh, I definitely feel that the situation is more nuanced than Bad Guy Murders Cute Elephant, but the fact that this rich dude wants to use his money this way, to personally go there and kill the elephant for funsies, and then portray himself as a humanitarian, is revolting. I can't help but feel that someone like this would also be thrilled to go hunt down a human offender if they could... and probably he could. The combination of enough money and a corrupt enough government and impoverished enough setting probably opens the door to all sorts of hunting (and other) opportunities. Maybe this was a very bad elephant. For Parsons, though, there will never be a shortage of "bad elephants," or Very Bad offenders of any other species he takes it into his head to slaughter.

The icing on the cake is that he also wants to be hailed as a hero as part of what he's paying for. Money can't buy you love, dude, especially when you are a moral monster.
posted by taz at 10:36 PM on March 31, 2011


Yes, occasionally animals do need to be killed for various reasons. Even the strongest lovers of animals generally think the humane death of an animal in extreme pain is the best result. That doesn't mean anyone takes pleasure in it, any more than someone takes pleasure in turning off life support for a relative. But Africa has an ample supply of people who are perfectly able to kill any elephants that truly do need to be killed, and I'm not saying this one even needed to die at all, without needing to import an American businessman to do the job for them.
posted by zachlipton at 11:37 PM on March 31, 2011


The ethical quandry can be dealt with in this fashion: Bob Parsons is a Marine vet, torture advocate, and seller of domain registration services through the strategic use of tits. On that basis alone, it was possible to conclude that he is of the subspecies "Manly Manly Shithead Man", and that doing business with GoDaddy meant enriching an abhorrent shithead.

So when a torture loving, tit-flogging shithead shoots an elephant, one should assume that he did it because he's a torture-loving, tit-flogging shithead, and it would have been more honest of him say that he really fucking enjoyed shooting that elephant, and that his only regret was that he wasn't born a century ago, when rich, corpulent white fuckheads not only shot elephants for shits and giggles, but lions and tigers too, and if anyone has a problem tiger, you know who to call.

(A suggestion to the president of LSU: don't invite Bob Parsons to any home games.)
posted by holgate at 12:10 AM on April 1, 2011 [6 favorites]


So, when this guy dies and goes to Hell, his DI will be Sgt. Babar, right?
posted by trondant at 4:18 AM on April 1, 2011


There's no point in arguing or posting studies as I'm fully aware that there are studies there that support both views.

I'd very much like to see the studies you've seen that strongly support the view that human ancestors ate a mostly meat-based diet. Feel free to MeMail.

so if for the sake of argument we were similar to them we'd still have a drive to hunt.

"A drive to hunt" is a pretty vague way of putting it; "chimpanzees have strong instincts for cooperatively hunting with weapons" is a bit better, but still fudges the relative importance in the diet of meat and plants. The main point, though, is your initial claim. You stated that hunting was "the activity that we evolved to depend upon for our survival for the past 30 million years." That's clearly a huge overstatement, and it's nice to see you've been backing away from it in all of your subsequent statements. I'm just asking you to be aware that's what happened here.
posted by mediareport at 6:36 AM on April 1, 2011


There are other groups backing the Chili planting idea.
posted by Karmakaze at 7:44 AM on April 1, 2011


mediareport, no I haven't backed away from anything. I believe that the lives of modern hunter gatherer's are different from those of paleolithic people, and that we would have depended on hunting along with scavenging for a living. You still seem to want nitpick my somewhat flippant comment to hammer home your point. Yes maybe if you take the most literal interpretation we could have survived on plants, but there's one woman who survives on barbecue monster munch...it doesn't mean it wouldn't be seen as a hard luck option and unhealthy and doesn't change the essential meaning of what I was saying. I think we 'depended' on meat and hunting in a real health sense. If you don't agree with that fine, then we disagree.

I'm afraid I don't bookmark a lot of studies, but if you're interested in paleolithic eating and check out forums this kind of stuff comes up all the time so I guess you don't do that. It's easy to find studies on the net that support a meat based diet.

This one here proposes that 65% 35% could be the norm, and this is inferring from modern hunter gatherers who did't have access to as much meat as paleolithic people.
posted by Not Supplied at 8:42 AM on April 1, 2011


If this entire hunter-gatherer argument turns out to be a viral advert for The Caveman Diet Book, I for one will be sorely disappointed.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:15 AM on April 1, 2011


my somewhat flippant comment

Agreed.
posted by mediareport at 9:41 AM on April 1, 2011


my somewhat flippant comment

Agreed.


Dick move. You're no fun to talk with.
posted by Not Supplied at 9:46 AM on April 1, 2011


Interview with Parsons about the controversy.
posted by ericb at 11:11 AM on April 1, 2011


Parsons: "I picked "Hell's Bells" because if you're in that situation with knives fighting for meat, that's about as close to Hell as you get. Am I apologetic? I'm going to do it next year."

And I'm assuming that, because you are clearly filled with machismo and bravado, you will bring the aforementioned knife fight to that elephant next year.

Because I'd love to watch you get stomped to paste while Hells Bells played in the background.

Oh, you were just talking out your ass? Never mind then.
posted by quin at 11:28 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Am I apologetic? I'm going to do it next year.

Offered without comment.
posted by holgate at 12:15 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey, I came up with a more charitable version of my earlier chucklehead comment -- what if the dude/dudette had outstanding credit with GoDaddy? I mean, that's not cash they could get back, so that kind of works, right? Hm.
posted by cavalier at 6:43 PM on April 1, 2011


He killed a leopard too, on the same trip? WTF? Thank you everyone for posting alternatives to godaddy, we have 10 domains to transfer to some other service asap.
posted by zarah at 10:33 PM on April 1, 2011


Zimbabwe Expert: The Truth About Killing 'Problem' Elephants.
Zimbabwe's premier conservationist, a 62-year-old man who says he's endured assassination attempts for trying to preserve wildlife in one of Africa's poorest and most repressive countries, can't watch the video showing Bob Parsons, the billionaire CEO of GoDaddy.com, shooting and killing an elephant.

"I've seen so many of the atrocities against elephants and other wildlife here that it sickens me to the bottom of my soul," Johnny Rodrigues, chairman of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, told AOL News today on the telephone from Harare.

"But I have read what Parsons said, and he is totally misinformed about what is going on here. I wish he knew the truth."
Read the whole thing (it's not long); he refutes every justification Parsons has put forth.
posted by taz at 5:01 AM on April 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


For anyone feeling unsure about how to go about transferring, I completely transferred my three remaining Godaddy accounts within a matter of hours. The steps you need to take are:

Go to your Godaddy account and unlock all your domains. Nothing can progress until they are unlocked. You will get an email about the change in status.

Meanwhile, check every one of them and make sure your contact info is up to date for each, especially your email. I thought that updating my main contact info updated the info for all my domains, but it doesn't. I had one domain from 5+ years ago with outdated info for everything, including email, which meant a delay in transferring that one, because I couldn't do the next step, which is...

get the EPP code for each domain. On Godaddy, they call it the Authorization code, and here's how to get it. Once you have received the emails containing the EPP (authorization) codes for each of your domains, you can...

go to your registrar of choice and begin the transfer process. You will be asked for the EPP codes for each domain, and you will be asked to confirm the request by clicking on a link, so keep an eye on your mail.

Once the transfer is in progress, you will get a notice from Godaddy telling you how to cancel it... but you don't want to cancel it, you want to accept the transfer, which will go ahead and speed it through. Otherwise, just do nothing and it should go through after a few days. I didn't want to wait, so I did the following:
In the My Account section, under "Domain Related," select "Domain Transfers."

Select the transfer you wish to accept from the "Pending Transfers" list, and click the appropriate button to accept the transfer.
(I wish I had noted down exactly how I did this, but you'll find it easily enough.)

Then you should get that sweet, sweet, notification: "This is to confirm that the following domain name(s) has been successfully transferred away from KillDaddy.com, Inc. to YourRegistrar, Inc.:

YOURnow Godaddy-freeDOMAIN.COM"

Have a drink.
posted by taz at 5:41 AM on April 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


I forgot something. If you have private registration, you'll have to turn it off. I got burned on this with Godaddy once, so I've never accepted their "free private registration." (After a while it's not free, and they try to make you jump through crazy hoops to get rid of it.)

Anyway, here are also steps from ENom about transferring from Godaddy.

Though they say that to be eligible the contact information may not have changed for the last 60 days, but I didn't have that problem. As I said above, one of my accounts had an outdated email, and they all had outdated addresses, and I changed all of that before transferring.

(Let it be noted that while Godaddy did not change my domain contact info stuff whenever I changed my account contact info, they never failed to find the right email address to bill me. I also went through crazy bullshit where they said I couldn't turn off private registration because they couldn't verify it was me, and I kept saying but you are communicating with me using my contact info. You are billing me using my contact info. Suddenly that info isn't good enough to turn off a service I don't want?)
posted by taz at 6:32 AM on April 2, 2011


I didn't even watch the video (ugh, no thanks), but reading this thread made me move three of my domains that are expiring soon away from Godaddy. And I'll be moving the rest of them away as their time comes.

Probably I wouldn't have bothered if Godaddy had any redeeming qualities. Like even one. But it's the most user-hostile service I deal with regularly. Being run by a rich pro-torture elephant killer is just the icing on the cake.
posted by frenetic at 7:17 PM on April 3, 2011


Strange that this was just bumped. I just got a flash of anger at some self-righteous Facebook friend defriending a friend that hunted. and I don't even hunt. just hate people who prefer animals to humans
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 7:25 PM on April 3, 2011


You do realise that the elephant hadn't booked a flight to the US to stampede through GoDaddy HQ, right? This wasn't kill or be killed?
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:41 AM on April 4, 2011


« Older The Dangerous US Game in Yemen...  |  For the good of the nation, yo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments