Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy (jacquesmattheij.com)
619 points by RiderOfGiraffes 2073 days ago | hide | past | web | 320 comments | favorite



I guess I'll be the lone discenting voice and say I don't think it's that bad. Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular freedom to do so since he has zero investors and is the sole owner. He does certain things for shock value, such as the super bowl commercials, which by the way caused outage with a completely different demographic of people.

Slaughtering an elephant might offend some of your sensibilities, but hunting in Africa is wide spread and as long as the elephant is not endangered, I don't think your outrage has a leg to stand on. The elephant was used as food and now crops are protected.

There are much worse things going on in America's food industry then this. In fact if anything if that elephant could feed the village I'd say this was actually a good thing.

I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted.


While I respect your opinions in support of Parsons, I'm going to have to disagree with you on a lot of your arguments.

>Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular freedom to do so since he has zero investors and is the sole owner

Parsons does have the freedom to do what he likes but there are consequences to those actions. No one is questioning his freedom to do what he chooses.

> He does certain things for shock value...

True but I think killing an elephant and then posting a video about it is a bit different than showing scantily clad women dancing on the hood of a convertible. Both can be equally demeaning and morally questionable to certain parts of the population but let's be real here, killing an "innocent animal" is much more controversial than what is shown on TV almost every night.

> Slaughtering an elephant might offend some of your sensibilities, but hunting in Africa is wide spread and as long as the elephant is not endangered, I don't think your outrage has a leg to stand on.

Not sure if you read the article but Jacques specifically states there's a clear difference between a rich dude shooting the Elephant and a native Zimbabwean game warden doing it to protect his crops (which btw, there are many other ways of going about that than shooting it). The psychology behind the former doing it can be extremely powerful (and enraging) compared to the latter.

> There are much worse things going on in America's food industry then this.

Agreed. But that's missing the point.

> I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted.

I'd assume this statement was more offensive to vegetarians than watching that video. I'd assume that b/c I am one.


Both can be equally demeaning and morally questionable to certain parts of the population but let's be real here, killing an "innocent animal" is much more controversial than what is shown on TV almost every night.

In a culture where steakhouses dot the roadsides, it seems odd to assert that killing an "innocent animal" is controversial at all. In some US locality where vegetarians make up the vast majority of the population, maybe, but does a place like that even exist?

I haven't seen the video; I'm just speaking to that one sentence, really.


Really? You don't see how flying in a rich westerner into some poverty-stricken region of the developing world to carry out an endangered wild big-game trophy hunt might be more controversial than killing an animal farmed for food for its intended purpose? I don't buy it, and as someone with so much at stake, he should have known better.


Dumbo = innocent;

Elsie = delicious;


chc, humans call this humor or satire.


I don't understand your point. You're just restating the hypocrisy that randallsquared pointed out.


There's nothing hypocritical or even illogical about special casing every single species with varying levels of concern. At some point you have a set of purely irrational axioms about some qualities, be they kingdom, phylum, family, genus, species, or some other subjective criteria for what makes a living creature worthy of consideration when its life is in danger.


If you don't believe there's a rational basis to this consideration, it's hypocritical to criticize somebody else for having a different but no less valid set of qualities he considers.


Not at all. I'm criticizing you for your repeated misuse of the word hypocritical. (And your attempt to equate disagreement with your viewpoint to a failure of logic.) If you can't have a reasonable discussion without name calling, you don't belong here.


Not sure if you read the article but Jacques specifically states there's a clear difference between a rich dude shooting the Elephant and a native Zimbabwean game warden doing it to protect his crops (which btw, there are many other ways of going about that than shooting it). The psychology behind the former doing it can be extremely powerful (and enraging) compared to the latter.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the elephant ends up dead either way. If the Zimbabwean government can monetize a practice that would otherwise cost them money (viz., protecting crops from elephants) and simultaneously a dude with excess money can get some recreational activity out of it, it seems like it's a win-win.

There obviously are some issues with this, e.g., if the government's only interest is moneymaking rather than proper wildlife husbandry, then they're incentivized short-term to sell the rights to kill every elephant around. But no one is going around complaining that there's insufficient evidence of proper husbandry here; rather, they're complaining because a big mammal that lots of us read about in storybooks as kids just got shot.

I'd be pissed if this were a case where they obviously baited the elephants or were just slaughtering the animals indiscriminately. This obviously isn't the case, though.


> Not sure if you read the article but Jacques specifically states there's a clear difference between a rich dude shooting the Elephant and a native Zimbabwean game warden doing it to protect his crops (which btw, there are many other ways of going about that than shooting it). The psychology behind the former doing it can be extremely powerful (and enraging) compared to the latter.

That's a great point. I mostly agree with the GP, but the symbolism of Parsons' actions is really powerful.


I'd assume this statement was more offensive to vegetarians than watching that video. I'd assume that b/c I am one.

So what if you're offended? That's no reason for the other side of a rational argument to change their argument in reaction to you being offended, so it's irrelevant.


Pro Tip: Actual dissent requires being on-topic. And that means paying enough attention to know what the topic actually is.

Had you actually read the OP, you'd have understood that the crux of the criticism has to do with mindless participation in an obviously bad system. That is, a system that turns a necessary but easily abused task into a profit center - thereby ensuring that it will be stretched to utterly unnecessary proportions.

It had nothing to do with hunting in general, or being a vegetarian in particular.

For the record, there's (a lot) more to the issue than a few meals. Even in the limited areas where elephant populations are not highly endangered, there's still substantial controversy around any practice that allows the ivory market to legitimately revive itself, since it not only provides cover for black-market ivory, it also fuels the kind of demand that leads to increased poaching in places where elephants remain truly endangered.

You should also know that what you saw on that video is the exception, not the rule. In the all-too-common cases where elephants are killed illegally, any stray documentary crews would also be killed, with all the bodies left to rot. The same goes for rhinos, tigers, and other magnificent creatures unfortunate enough to have one or two body parts valuable only to chronically egotistical douchebags.

Assuming that being thoughtful enough to read isn't too much trouble, you can start to educate yourself by considering this: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephant...


You can reply without being offensive. You could also save time by not prefacing some of your sentences with insults.

Come on, uncool.

Additionally, the article you linked says (among other pros and cons)

     Some countries, including South Africa, Zimbabwe, 
    Botswana, and Namibia, had been able to manage their 
    elephant populations and claimed that increased 
    populations were causing increased agricultural losses, 
    decreased revenue from hunting and increased conflicts 
    between elephants and local residents.
Which is something you ignore in your arguments. Did you happen to miss that part in the page you linked?

The money these countries get from allowing safaris does pay for the parks they preserve. The few animals killed (legally) do not have a significant impact on the population as a whole, and I'd argue have a significant positive impact on the parks as a whole.

Thanks for the perspective, though.


I neither missed nor ignored the segment you cite (though I do appreciate your reading it).

The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover to ivory gathered illegally.

Not only does that cover serve sellers with ivory in the market, it also applies to ivory in the possession of buyers who can more easily deflect the (totally justified) social stigma that was slowly starting to attach itself to the stuff.

It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic, and where responsible stewardship demands a more disinterested handling. The "glory" of big game hunting (and, specifically, its packaging for sale) is one of the prime reasons that many populations got endangered in the first place.

Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local. Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism. The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem.

Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab. Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.


Seems to me like it would be much more reasonable to blame the poachers and the systems that allow poaching versus one man who legally killed an animal. An animal that was going to be destroyed anyways.

In my opinion, Bob Parsons did nothing wrong, even if I wouldn't have posted a video about it. Heck, I also wouldn't have killed the animal. But to attempt to blame him to poaching and historical racism (the great white hunter line) seems a little out there.

Do you have any evidence that the legal killing, in this manner, actually has any affect on wildlife populations? Any reason to think that it actually does provide cover (data reasons rather than anecdotes)?

Again, it's not something that I would do, or even something that I approve. But to say that it's wrong, seems uncalled for. Then again, I also wouldn't use large breasted woman as the focus on my domain name sales company.

Also, I hate godaddy for how horrible their interface is. They have made major strides in their DNS hosting, which is all I'll use it for anymore.


There's nothing reasonable about blaming one agent instead of another when it's their partnership that's doing the damage.

Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildlife as being worth more dead than alive. The thing supporting this view is a larger (and hugely problematic) outlook that views the Earth as an infinitely renewable resource, and only acknowledges financial limits when it comes to one's own consumption.

The good news is that a growing number of people look at this guy's 'adventure' and think "ick". Though you may not share that sense of moral revulsion, please be aware that it reflects an instinct that you and any kids you may have will ultimately benefit from.


I believe that your connection of the tragedy of the commons with this specific story may be wrong.

I recall Zimbabwe is one of the countries that more or less _privatized_ elephants, and the owners of private hunting parks do not treat them at all as an infinitely renewable resource, exactly like a cow farmer doesn't. They don't have interest in over hunting, on the contrary their profit depends on having a healthy and stable population. I am not qualified enough to judge the long term effects, but Zimbabwe has had a stable/growing population of elephants for more than twenty years now.

While I don't like big animals hunting, I'd say this shows a completely different outlook from the one you refer to.


You seem a lot more comfortable telling other people what they ought to do than I am.


Even the Republicans don't grease their slopes this much.

One guy killing one elephant for the sake of a minor and frankly uninteresting publicity stunt (and this guy being part of a small minority of company owners capable of doing this, since shareholders would never approve) does not ipso facto lead to a bunch of rich sport-hunters decimating the wildlife population of Africa as a revival of some sort of primal hunting instinct. That's absolutely absurd. I seem to recall this show back in the day called the "Crocodile Hunter" featuring the contest of a human with an endangered species in waaaaay more glorified terms than this.


I'm pretty sure Steve Irwin was a conservationist though... Aka -- he went and wrestled with Crocodiles but he never shot them - certainly not for sport.

// Being an Aussie -- we'd never really heard of Steve Irwin until he died. At which point he moved from being a tosser to being a national hero.


>The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered

This is not a commercial big game hunt.

>It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic

This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing.

>Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local

So the fact he took video of it then means he's making a spectacle of himself? He's just trying to record something good he was doing.

>Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism.

Neither of these commodities went anywhere except with the surrounding villagers.

>The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem.

Because it's not a problem, nothing was taken.

>Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab.

You were objectively being an unprofessional, emotional twat.

>Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.

Mindless to who? You. Your entire rant that i've read is 100% mindless to me. Your opinion of what's mindless is just that - opinion, and it's subjective. Since you hate mindless responses I'll assume you think your response is mindful. I find this interesting seeing as how the majority of your post is about "jabbing" people and speaking emotionally.


>>It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic

>This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing.

Though it might be arguable that the hunt organizers/tour guides were profit seeking. Guiding someone to a place where they can shoot an animal for fun (with the guise of doing good) will bring them some money. Sure, it could have been beneficial to the community to rid a problem elephant and give the villagers additional meat - but Bob's desire to shoot something is doubtfully meant to be for the good will of the community and more so to fill his own desires of killing something.


Parsons hunting Leopard in Zimbabwe in 2009 with some propaganda at the start of the video on why killing leopard is a good thing:

http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501

As a citizen of a southern African country I can tell you that A) The educated locals are disgusted by this kind of hunting for sport as opposed to food and B) I can assure you that the "foreign currency" that it supposedly brings in is not converted to Zim dollars and spent on the local economy.


Upvoted for pointing out that any marginal program promoted by Zimbabwean officials citing "benefits to the local economy" is utter bullshit.

If any of those officials actually cared about the local economy (or actually intended to let the money reach it), they wouldn't have demolished those economies with their utterly unrestrained corruption and graft.

Honestly, believing propaganda like that makes you look as naive as the people who believe that the wives of abusive husbands "just happen to keep falling down the stairs."


Zimbabwe got rid of their local currency 2 years ago. Clearly since it does not exist their money was not converted to it.


I don't see how vegetarianism even plays a part in this discussion. I'm not a vegetarian, but this offends me. I'm offended by Parson's bravado and his claim that "Of everything I do this is the most rewarding."

Parson kills an animal under the guise of crop protection and to feed a village. Were I watching a local hunt for this elephant to feed their family I would feel that the death was justified. But we're really just watching a rich westerner tramp around in the dark so he can fire a gun.

Is this really the most rewarding thing Parson could think to do for local villagers in Zimbabawe? And even if so, I would expect some more humility from someone who claimed their actions were so noble.


What offends me is the godaddy baseball caps. As a customer I feel like I'm going on Bob's trip with him in full support of what he's doing.


You are going to be offended that some of the conservations in Africa are maintained by 'rich westerner' hunters who do not want to see the animals gone in order to preserve hunting.


If "conservation" means breeding wild animals in what is essentially captivity so that "rich westerners" can pay lots of money to go around and shoot them for the sake of shooting them, then you're absolutely right, I am going to be offended.


So if the elephant were dead by the hand of a poor African, it would be okay in your eyes? Income seems like an arbitrary factor to determine whether or not it is morally acceptable to kill an animal.


Not arbitrary at all. As soon as large sums of money are involved, the question goes from one of pure necessity to one that tries to "balance" a lack of necessity against the promise of an easy buck.

Moral Hazard 101.


Thank you. Agreed. He fed a village (or more), saved the crop, and it looks like the people there find this to be a noble act.

Our U.S. grocery stores have stock piles of meat stacked in open refrigerators, butchered behind closed doors. Animals are fed and bred to be slaughtered so we can have a juicy burger and fries. Out of sight out of mind I guess.

Now... MAYBE the CEO of a hugely popular brand should not have participated in such an activity and filmed it for sake of his company, employees and customers, but I'm certainly not moving my domains over this.

There are probably employees there that don't like what he did either, but I'm not going to punish them for the actions of 1.


> I'm certainly not moving my domains over this.

Me neither. I'm moving my domains because this reminded me of the silent, seething rage I have for Bob Parson's face.

When I go to a site that registers and manages domains, I don't want to see your face. I also don't want to see ads about how great your company is. When I buy a domain, I don't want to wade through five pages of bullshit you put up in the hopes that I won't notice some default or will misclick somewhere and inadvertently buy your useless services. I just want to register and manage my fucking domains.

Seriously, GoDaddy is the expertsexchange of domains.


Just out of curiosity where are you going to move your domains? I own just over 30 domains all at GoDaddy and I'd move them over the massive amounts of cross selling and insanely cluttered UI.


Namecheap offers a 4.99 USD transfer special using the "byebyeGD" coupon code, valid until 11:59pm EST 1st of April 2011: http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/


... and just emailed me, as an existing Namecheap customer, letting me know that I can help save the elephants. Nice fast-move marketing. :)

"It's not often that we would disagree publicly with a competitor, but we at Namecheap are very disturbed by this video of a competitor killing an elephant for sport. Check out the ABC News Report (Warning: Very Graphic!)

We've decided to throw our support behind our Elephant friends by offering domain transfers at a price where we actually lose money.

Show your protest by saying BYEBYEGD again and transfer your domains to Namecheap for $4.99 for the next 24 hours through 11:59pm EST on 3/31/11 (limit 10 per user, valid for all com/net/org domains).

On top of that, we'll donate $1 for each transfer to Save The Elephants at http://www.savetheelephants.org/

Use coupon code BYEBYEGD and let's help the Elephants together!

Regards, Team Namecheap"


NameCheap are an ex-client (obvious disclaimer) back when they were a lot smaller than they are these days. They were a decent bunch and while always on the ball with marketing, I can imagine there being some genuine feeling behind this - they weren't the type to stick branded caps on African villagers, that's for sure.


Copied from one of my previous comments in an old thread:

http://name.com

I've used godaddy, namecheap, and 1&1, but ended up switching all my domains to name.com. One of the best interfaces I've used as it doesn't try to abstract the DNS records from you. That was one of my biggest issues with 1&1 and godaddy - their interface made it so that I never knew exactly what my DNS settings were, just what the spoon-fed messages that I was given told me. The only "abstracted" thing that they do is provide a one-click solution for setting the dns entries for google apps (which you can still manually edit, as they appear in your DNS records). Here's some screenshots of the backend:

http://i.imgur.com/F5j5m.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rx3uq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vGwwz.jpg

Seriously, try it. I liked them so much that I paid to have my other domains transfered to them. That alone should show you how much I enjoy it over the others I've tried.


I use dreamhost which sells domains at 10 bucks with automatic private registration. But dreamhost only sells .com, .net, and .us I believe. For the others I use name.com

Honestly I haven't done enough research, but I completely agree with the OP. I'd rather pay double than to have to sift through godaddys utter bullshit of a UI.


We're currently taking registrations under COM/NET (Verisign) and ORG/INFO (Afilias). US is a third, separate registry (NeuStar), and we aren't currently a registrar for them.


I'm slowly moving all my domains to Name.com. Once your account is setup and you've purchased one domain, all future domain purchases take a grand total of two clicks.


I like gandi quite a lot, it's simple and reliable.


I second that.


I've been moving my domains (one by one as they expire) over to dynadot.com. So far I'm very happy--they have a much better interface and no annoying upsell junk during checkout.

I've heard they have a less powerful DNS interface but I run my own DNS servers so I've never noticed.


I've had good experiences with Hover.


Well, did u by any chance mean expert sex change??


well, that was supposed to be joke and u guys are downvoting!!!


> I'm certainly not moving my domains over this.

Godaddy's got plenty of other atrocities higher on my list, like the usability of their web panel.


While I agree that this certainly isn't the worst action of a CEO ever (nor this year or probably this day), I can understand the outrage a bit.

First of all, controlling your public image is a good idea, most of the time. Unless you want to go totally over the top and take it too a Donal Trump level. Hunting probably belongs in the same class as politics, religion and sexuality: Don't talk about it too much.

Second, it's hunting in Africa. Trying to look like you're the protector of a poor village there is going to bring back things like the "White Man's Burden" into the mind of people reading and watching this. Not a good idea, part deux.

Never mind that shooting elephants is a last-ditch effort. As far as I know there are lots of other ways to drive them off, maybe not as easy (and "entertaining") as just shooting them.

On the other hand, it's the GoDaddy CEO. Not exactly a brand with a good publicity anyway, and they barely need it. Enough people go there because they like to save money and/or don't know any competitors. Regarding needs for good publicity, they're probably somewhere between McDonalds and Monsanto.


And it's supporting the government of Zimbabwe, some of the worst on the continent.


I found it somewhat ironic that the villagers standing around cutting meat off the elephant seemed to do more damage by trampling the crops than the elephants did. Look at the last part of the video... between the elephants, hunters, and the entire village fighting over the meat, the poor farmers crops don't stand a chance.


Yes, it seems a large number of people are comparing our own countries way of life to the way of life in another country. We might go and admire elephants in zoos, but for some countries they're a PITA. Some people might think the way we (the "west") exterminate cock roaches and stuff is bs. Different cultures etc.


It's not the hunting that offends me. It's the GoDaddy hats during the slaughter.


The butcher at my grocery store wears a coat with the company name on it while he grounds up my hamburger.


That's cool, so does mine, and I have zero problem with that. However, GoDaddy is not it the elephant butchering business. Slapping their hats on people butchering an elephant strikes me as a crass marketing attempt (even for them).


That's a good point. But do you think they knew that this was going to happen when they handed out the hats?


And there are already too many elephants in South Africa: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7700606


That might well be true, but is it not Zimbabwe we're talking about here? I know they're neighbors, but that doesn't mean they face the same exact problems.


I have no problems with killing and eating animals. There are 1.5 billion cattle on this planet. Elephants, however, have been hunted from a population of 5-10 million a century ago to around 600,000 today and are now a threatened species. Do you really not see the difference between one and the other?


No, I'm not sure if I do. The pain cattle feels is no less pleasant than that elephants experience. The lives they lead in captivity so that we may eat them are almost certainly hellish compared to those that elephants live. In essence not only are they killed, but they're bred and forced to live torturous lives just for the purpose of being killed.

How exactly does a greater world-wide population of one's species lower the value of one's life? Is it based on some cutoff beyond which extinction is assured? Or is it linear?Does maximizing the number of species on the planet really trump all concerns of suffering?

If so, this logic would also somewhat weaken the value of the life of a dog (300 million) in comparison to that of a cat (200 million)? And what about the value of your life or mine? There are 6 billion of our species.

Personally, I find it very hard to justify both eating animal flesh and outrage at animal killing. On occasion, I have an uneasy feeling that centuries from now humanity will look upon our current practices in a similar way as we look upon slavery... or cannibalism.


It's not so much about slaughtering the elephant as it is exploitation of the villagers to promote his company. It's like he's saying to them "Fine. I'll help you. I'll get rid of this elephant and save your crops and even feed you for a day or two, but you will have to wear my hats when you slaughter it". If this is more a philanthropic gesture, are the hats necessary? Should Bill Gates require every kid who is saved from malaria wear Microsoft t-shirts?


Really? You think that's how it went down?

Isn't it more likely that he handed out the hats as a nice gesture to the locals, and he had no idea those same people would soon attack the dead carcass and start handing out its flesh?


Yeah, well somebody definitely made the editing decision to include that nice shiny, well-framed shot of the guy wearing a GoDaddy hat. So whether the decision came before or after, they seem to be happy about it...


It's not offensive to "vegetarians" – it's offensive to people who care about living beings.


If you're offended by the practice of killing living beings for food, but you're not a vegetarian, what you are is simply inconsistent.


Sunchild didn't say anything about killing living beings for food. Only that as a person who cares about living beings, this seems offensive.

You're assuming a very specific value system on the basis of a single, vague axiom.


You're putting words in my mouth there. There's killing in the name of hunger, and then there's killing in the name of sport. I don't give a shit how much PR GoDaddy wraps around this story (hungry villagers, elephants on a rampage to destroy crops, funding other wildlife preserves, etc.), this is killing for sport.

There's no valid need to kill this animal. If the villagers themselves had taken care of it (or if a game warden had culled the animal as part of a considered program that benefits both human and elephant populations), I may feel differently.


Hate to pick nits, but you mean living animals. Plants are alive too.


Was with you until your stab at vegetarians. I'm a vegetarian, I'm not an animal rights activists.

This is like seeing a change going in the Ubuntu distribution and saying it might offend Linux kernel developers. In other words, it's misinformed at best, and a worthless and argumentative statement at worst.


>I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted.

I think you're confusing vegetarians with people who dig frugality.


Exactly. Vegetarians have problems with killing...period.


You could choose to be a vegetarian because you disagree with factory farming and the industrialization of the meat industry. You could become a vegetarian because you don't like the texture of meat.

All 'vegetarian' infers is dietary choice. The reasons for becoming one can vary greatly.


That's not true. Vegetarians have a problem eating meat, hence the vege- prefix. I'm a vegetarian and have no problem with killing, especially for food. I'm just not going to eat meat.


From context, it is clear that he's talking about people who are vegetarians for moral reasons (as are most people when they say "vegetarians believe X," since obviously if you're not a vegetarian for ideological reasons, no ideology can be inferred from your vegetarianism).


Thanks, you are correct.


Hitler was a vegetarian


Well there you go. Close thread.


Great points, but there are a lot more dangerous things out there to sorghum than a couple of elephants. Elephants are big animals and they would have scared off a number of smaller, possibly more dangerous critters.

shock value or not (and even if he did do the right thing), he still comes off as a dick.


I find your reasoning faulty. Frankly, I think it's you without a leg to stand on.

Tu quoque much? Murder, child abuse, blah blah, is widespread everywhere as well. Arguing this is somehow justifiable because something is "widespread" makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

And implying that Parson's gutless little stunt is justified simply because this is great for his company puts you squarely in the ends justify the means camp. Inhabiting that miserable landscape, you and he will not mind when I declare open season and cull a few company CEOs and feed a whole village, too. Would you then say that's actually a good thing, too?

It's not like we'd be wasting the fucking meat.


1) Read the OP 2) He could have donated money he spent on the expedition to feed that village. 3) He could have relocated the elephants. They are called tranqs, it won't take one, but it'll take a few and get the elephant down.

This is just an excuse for a rich person to brag about killing an endangered specie with a gun. OOOO SKILL. If he did it with his bare hands, then I would applaud.


As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant. There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them -- in fact, killing an elephant is almost never an option. If the villagers don't have the financial resources to implement non-lethal control measures, I'm sure Bob Parsons does.


> As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant.

Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)?

> There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them

There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone elephant bull is no problem.

I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as elephants) because some groups (such as PETA) opposed elephant culling.

How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly an elephant fucks up a tree? Elephants are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have animals.

I fail to see how anyone opposes elephant culling can label himself as an ecologist.

--PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE--:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Elephant-culling-in-Africa


There is an oversupply of humans and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone human male is no problem.

I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as humans) because some groups (such as the UN) opposed human culling.

How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly a human fucks up a tree? Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have humans.

I fail to see how anyone opposes human culling can label himself as an ecologist.


This satirical response only applies if you value human lives and elephant lives equally.


So true. The Bible says that we are created in God's image and that God gave us domain to do whatever we like to animals... just so long as we don't attempt to copulate with them. It should be a crime to even hint that an animal's life could be valued as a human life... Except for my trusty dog companion. </sarcasm>


Sorry if I actually subscribe to that belief. Neither did God give humans a free pass on torturing less valued species. Animals are given as a resource much like trees and oil. Animals also happen to have some capacity for emotion and intelligence. Since they are similar to us in some way we should respect them, lest we become callus with the taking of intelligent life.

As for pets, it's a cultural thing that we don't eat pets. The bible cautions against following culturally aberrant activities provided doing so doesn't infringe on your service to God.

I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.

(Sorry if I am less than clear, I'm typing this on my iPad and I can't edit stuff in text boxes very easily.)


> I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.

Some beliefs don't deserve respect.


Look, you can be a smartass and try to criticize other's beliefs. But at least know what the beliefs of others are.

Criticizing a group of people based on your own naivety of their beliefs is both ignorant and arrogant.

Read this:

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/an-tpr-are-10.html

Many passages in the Bible explain that humans are stewards of nature.


This is a bit snarky, but I think it does represent a valid way of looking at things.


> Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

Tragically enough, in Africa humans have natural predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa


AIDS/HIV is just a tool, like claw. The predator here is just another human who spreads the virus.


Yes very droll. If a human was destroying the food supply of the village then things would probably end badly for them too.

Probably not being killed for meat though but YMMV.


I'm not an ecologist and didn't claim to be one (I'm a computer scientist), and my comment wasn't about the benefits of elephant culling. As a last resort, yes it can sometimes be necessary, but there was no indication that it was necessary in this case. I'm opposed to lethal measures when there are other ways, and my point was that Bob Parsons could easily have paid for a relocation program had he wanted to, and won a lot of goodwill for himself and (perhaps more importantly) his brand in doing so. Instead, he's alienated a lot of potential customers, even from just this thread and the 178 current upvotes of the story's title.

Let's be realistic here -- this wasn't a planned "cull", this was a once-in-a-lifetime hunt for a rich guy.


We're supposed to believe one hubpages articles that doesn't cite any sources other than this guy who claims to work at the national park? Sorry, I need better sources than this to be convinced.


Then search the internet for sources - there are many. I cannot search properly (because it turns out the a country full of elephants has a lousy (and expensive) internet connection). Elephant culling has been widely debated in most countries. It is no secret.

The Kruger National Park even had a programme where they even tried to use contraceptives for Elephant Cows... What is next? An abstinence program?



Wow. Just wow.

Having been to Africa and seen elephants in the wild up close, among other animals, I simply can't stomach that I'm supporting a bunch of fat white Americans flying half way around the world to destroy a magnificent animal simply because they can.

I'll be moving my domains away from GoDaddy asap.


>> I'll be moving my domains away from GoDaddy asap.

I moved all my domains, ~30, from GoDaddy about 18 months ago. It was a slog. There was no "asap" to it. It took about 2 months to get them all moved over to namecheap. Transfers gets curtailed for various reasons and the current registrar is usually little help in solving the mysteries.

I'm telling you this not to take the wind from your sails but to prep you for a bit more effort.

The reason for my move was the full-on "retail experience" of GoDaddy. It just didn't work for me anymore. I wanted a more spartan registrar.


I also transferred all my domains from GoDaddy to NameCheap in the past year and never looked back. I was tired of having to navigate a maze of circa-1995-UI pages filled with upselling. Want to change your DNS settings? Oh, look for that teeny tiny link in the corner. Want to turn on domain privacy? That'll be another $9.95, and you have to log in to a different site with a different username+password to manage that.

Admittedly, GoDaddy has a genius business model IMO. The confusing UI is what probably makes them their bucks.


I've moved about a dozen domains away from GoDaddy over the last year. The time savings (less spam, cleaner interface) well exceeded the effort involved.


I just got done moving 100 domains over to ResellerClub from GoDaddy. The API really sold it for me and it makes it was easier to manage them all.


I've been thinking of moving for some time now (even before I watched this video). My question is: how?

They kind of own my domain names now, how can I simply change registrars?


GoDaddy doesn't own your domains at all, and they'll be more than happy to help you transfer away to a competitor.

It's simple! Just find the place in the GoDaddy UI to unlock your domains, then the other place to request the authorization code required to transfer the domains (you need to request this in an email per domain), then disable private registration if you have that enabled (but don't change your personal info, or you'll have to wait another 2 months), then wait for the correct registration info to propagate (wait a day to be safe, because if you do this wrong it really gets tricky), then start the transfer process at the competing registrar, and follow similarly byzantine steps with them.

At some point, GoDaddy will send you an email telling you that you can confirm the transfer, but they don't mention how. Instead, they give you the steps how to cancel the transfer. Follow those steps, if you can (make sure to click on the correct "My account" link or you'll never find the right forms) and just change the last step to say "confirm" rather than "cancel".

A few days will pass, and then your domain will be transferred!

Now, was that so hard?


I've been moving my domains one by one away from godaddy as they expire, and I can confirm that this is the general procedure. The only thing different for me is that it all seems to happen in about 30 minutes. I'm using dynadot.com as my new registrar and the domains seem to transfer very quickly. So quickly that I've tempted luck a couple times and transferred on the day the domains expire. I know, I know, but it all worked out O.K. But I'd recommend doing it a couple weeks early, just in case.


Transfer to:

Gandi: https://www.gandi.net/domain/transfer

1and1: http://order.1and1.com/xml/order/DomaininfoMove

NameCheap: http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/

Basically go to any registrars home page and either search for "Transfer" on the page itself or in their search box if provided. They will all offer it together with easy how to steps - and I am sure their support team will help as well. They want your business and will make it as easy as possible.


I'd encourage you to avoid 1and1. Horrendous customer service, crippled control panels, etc.


1and1 are quite simply the WORST company I have ever done business with. Avoid them like the plague.

I've been using namecheap for a couple of years, and I'm very happy with them.


Regarding 1and1 --- agreed!

We had a bit of trouble with them on credit card billing... Also, we found it hard to use their interface to change configuration settings.


I've also had horrendous customer service from 1and1. Minor billing problems for several months on end, which would have likely been easily remedied if they had competent phone support. (This was about 3 years ago, so maybe they've gotten better since then. They have already lost my business, and they'd be hard pressed to win it back.)


100% agree on that. I had a DSL contract with them in Germany and moved to another town where i had internet via cable included. They insisted that i have to keep paying for another 18 months with no way to cancel the contract early.

I paid and will avoid 1and1 for the rest of my life.


We use them at work - not a fan but haven't had any issues. Personally I use Gandi and love them.

Another one to avoid like the plague imho is dotster - lost a domain via dotster, even though my payment was accepted and then returned a week later. Domain briefly showed up with whois information of the CEO, and then it changed.


I hereby confirms that 1and1 stinks.


Here is a step-by-step guide on how to transfer the domain away from GoDaddy. It's to a registrar unknown to me but the instructions will work for any registrar, and the guide is new enough to use the current version of GoDaddy's craptastic UI:

http://support.tigertech.net/godaddy.com


I happily recommend Gandi myself; ben switching all my domains there for the past year or so and couldn't be happier.


Another vote for Gandi. I've been using them for about 6 years. No bullshit.


I've been slowly transferring my domains to Gandi as they expire, you have to love their tag line.


I just moved all of mine to Hover.com They have great customer service.


I put together a step-by-step guide on how to prepare domains for transfer out of GoDaddy:

http://blog.dnsimple.com/post/3167427271/preparing-domains-i...

Naturally I'd love if you used DNSimple, but this will work for transferring out to any other registrar.


You should move your domains away for reasons like constant up sales and other crappy tactics to keep you from your domains, not because the CEO shot a elephant in a different country.


As the customer I can do business with whomever I want to for whatever reason.

There is no such thing as a valid concern. All my concerns are valid.


And that's exactly why I want to move, I just didn't know how and saw the opportunity in this thread to get some help (also, OP, sorry for the small hijacking).

I've never seen an elephant in the wild and don't know Zimbabwe nearly well enough to know how much of a problem elephants in general (and this one in particular) are.

The whole attitude, though... Something akin to "here I am to save the day", or something like that... That I don't like, and it adds to the poor customer experience.

So, there. :)


Agreed. There are millions of people getting scammed and ruined by fat-cats everywhere, and an elephant is what it takes for people to get mad?

Wake up, everyone. I hate asshats like the GoDaddy CEO just as much as you do, but this self-righteous indignation is at The View levels right now.


Personally, I'm rather disheartened that it took shooting an elephant to convince people to leave GoDaddy.


Perhaps some of us care more about endangered species than those getting scammed around the world? Just a thought.


African elephants aren't an endangered species.


Maybe not technically, but the African Bush Elephant going down from 300,000 in 1970 to 10,000 today is a very significant drop.


Right, they're "Vulnerable" (which is the 'best' category of threatened, from the elephants' perspectives)


Scammed and ruined*, and I'd add killed, by way of economic force. Not every death is by way of physical force.

SMH. Downvoted because I prioritize humans over elephants.


Note: Submitted by me, by hand, after reading the posting and deciding it's relevant to startups.

Branding is important, and what you do with your brand is important. Actions speak louder than words. Google is still associated with "Do no Evil," but that's starting to wear a little thin as some of their actions belie the mantra. Similarly, you can get people chanting a slogan, but if you do something wrong, people will notice, and the backlash can be severe.

I would add that this:

  > There is no way to explain all this in a way that does
  > not make GoDaddy and it's CEO look good, and plenty of
  > ways to interpret it as bad.
... appears to have either too many or not enough negatives. I suggest it should read:

  > There is no way to explain all this in a way that makes
  > GoDaddy and it's CEO look good, and plenty of ways to
  > interpret it as bad.


This is a CEO who, in 2005, posted a blog article talking about why we have to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, because (mumble mumble) 9/11. He deleted both the original post and a half-retraction shortly thereafter, or I'd provide a link.

As such, I'm not surprised that he turned his personal hunting exhibition into a marketing expense. He seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to brand management. And that doesn't seem to have hurt him in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure what lesson to take away from any of this, except that he runs his business differently than I do.



Yes, though I'm not sure if that's the original or one of the edited versions he tried for a few days before just taking the article down.


> As such, I'm not surprised that he turned his personal hunting exhibition into a marketing expense.

Upvoted for this comment alone. In this context, the whole event makes a lot of sense.


Right, I find it difficult to believe that any of this was uncalculated (does that make me a high-mach?)

They appear to target the bottom 90% who needs a domain name. And, they very wisely get name recognition with non tech savvy business owners who often have the ultimate decision in which registrar to use.

Look at it from the vantage of a typical conservative small business owner here in America. Slaughtering a beautiful and rare animal is not deaf-ear branding - it's shrewd marketing. GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems. The association is powerful and on target.


  > GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems
Just don't forget to pay your GoDaddy bills...


   > Branding is important, and what you do with your brand is important. 
As this probably will not hurt them, it is reasonable to come to the opposite conclusion.


What I find most distasteful is the lie that he "saved a village and fed them". That's just bullshit.

There are more guns in Zimbabwe than most other parts of Africa. If the locals really wanted that elephant gone, it would have been machine gunned by two guys arriving on foot.

What really happened here is that a hunting party arrived, killed an elephant and left the carcass for the locals to eat.

What a hero.

PS: I spent my childhood and early 20's in South Africa and we hate this great-white-hunter tourist shit, but it sure pays the bills if you're the driver guide or booking agent.


> PS: I spent my childhood and early 20's in South Africa and we hate this great-white-hunter tourist shit, but it sure pays the bills if you're the driver guide or booking agent.

Uhm... no.

Do you know how much money hunters bring into rural areas? Do you know what a big shitload of game farms they fund?

I would argue that American hunters are the biggest boon for animal conservation. I see many farms being turned into game farms. In certain areas you cannot throw a rock without hitting a game farm.

American hunters put their money where their mouths are and pay serious $$$. The so called "animal rights groups" pay basically nothing and expect animal nirvana.


There is no hunting in the Serengeti just north of Zimbabwe and consequently it's the only place in Africa you can see a full wilderbeest migration. Game farms have fences and are basically zoos that let you shoot the animals. They are not a form of conservation.


> Zimbabwe and consequently it's the only place in Africa you can see a full wilderbeest migration.

The biggest problem is space (for wildebeest migration for example). You need large places - in many countries it is not possible.

Some private game farms can get quite big (easily over 20,000 hectares). And yeah, it may be small when compared to large parks but it still fulfills quite a few functions.

One example is ensuring genetic diversity - more space for animals, more genetic diversity.

Another is breeding programmes - a good example is breeding of buffalo that is free of Bovine TB (Bovine TB is dangerous for humans, spreads to domestic cattle and threaten buffalo populations.


Let's see who this outrage is coming from:

1) Someone who has never gone hungry for a single day in his/her life.

2) Someone who has consumed 100s of chickens, many cattle, and many other animals so far... Most of which have been literally tortured all their lives.

3) Someone who has never gone to Africa to help, but sits around all day posting his/her opinion on how things there (and everywhere else in the world) should be done.

I'll give you a secret. Want to change the world? Change yourself. It's the only way. Stop complaining. Stop finger pointing. Stop exerting yourself on others.

But yes... I do agree that it would have been best for GoDaddy to not post this.


Allow me to point you to these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Not to mention that you are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions about the outraged people.


You are using the above as buzzwords.

Making a valid and logical declaration based on personal experiences with the society he/she lives in is not a logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy is incorrect reasoning.

An opinionated, consumption-oriented, and selfish society is not one that produces people that have:

1. Either fasted, or have gone hungry (even the povery line class has been able to eat - a lot of food is cheap and there is also government and community help).

2. Do not consume animal products.

3. Truly help others (or anyone but themselves).


> You are using the above as buzzwords.

I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant to the question whether his behaviour was morally acceptable, but then I realised that I would essentially be explaining the above fallacies, even though there are already better explanations available.

I may have misread your post, but to me it looked like you were trying to invalidate people's criticism of his behaviour by making (speculative) statements about their behaviour or character. I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa. Anyway, if I misread your post and that was not the point you were making, I apologise.


> I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa.

Agreed. There are people like this in the world.

But they are few, and certainly not the majority.

My issue is not with what is moral, but with how easily people blame and demonize others.


.. and so you generalise and point your finger towards others as a response?


observing != generalising or blaming or finger pointing

I'm not sure how you are getting that from what I have posted.


oh screw off. He killed an elephant, an endangered animal, for fun. People should be outraged at that. So what if people "eat" meat, or haven't faced poverty or even been outside of their own town, let alone country. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to an opinion or to express it, unless of course that opinion is that other people shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions... which is what you've basically just said.


>He killed an elephant [...] People should be outraged at that.

Few sentences later:

> [...] That doesn't mean they don't have a right to an opinion [...]

Pick one.


I don't follow your point...?


You are making some broad assumptions of a large community. Some of us have indeed gone hungry for multiple days in our lives. Some of us have gone to Africa to help.

"Stop finger pointing. Stop exerting yourself on others."


My assumptions (in the post) are across society in general, and not specific to the HN commenter pool.

Though I see how it can be read that I'm commenting about the readers in this thread.


Unfortunately all my domains are with GoDaddy. Moving them ASAP. It is unacceptable for such a big company to have its CEO involved in something like this.

For years we've been discussing social responsibilities of the enterprise (I've been on it since 1998 here in Brazil) and then we see something like this. If it has the potential to make one disappointed and wonder if she shouldn't give up the fight, it also makes one see that discussing the social impacts and actions of businesses is still tremendously important and necessary.

I'm proud to be on the right side of the fight. And I'm ashamed of having my domains hosted with the slaughterhouse registrar.


I found an email in my inbox today from a competitor who are taking advantage of the PR disaster by offering a discount and a charitable contribution to anyone wishing to transfer their domains to them over this. Here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/za7G6.png


I don't agree with GoDaddy's lowest common denominator branding strategy, but it seems to have served them well over the years. It's hard to argue with results.

Make no mistake though, this is just as much a part of their branding strategy as their stupid, tasteless Super Bowl commercials. They'll probably make a token PR apology to hedge their bets here, but this reinforces their "brand" more than it damages it.


Ultimately, this is why I'm looking for another registrar. How can I reasonably recommend them to clients? The first thing you see on their site is a photo of a girl in a tight t-shirt, and text at the bottom that says "Aligators nipping at your ass? How to hang in there & enjoy the ride. PLUS a smoking hot crazy blond." It's ridiculous.


To paraphrase P.T. Barnum "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the buying public."


It's worth remembering that the producers of "Bumfights" went out of business due to lawsuits, not because they had revenue problems.


So, to recap: sexist advertising campaigns for the benefit of the entire company == OK; the CEO shooting an elephant == boycott. To be clear, I'm in no way agreeing with his actions, but it was getting fed up with the advertising that got me to dump GoDaddy for DynDNS long before anything like this occurred.


Umm -- YES! Sexist advertising campaign = Silly, but I am not going to choose or drop a registrar based on that. CEO shooting an innocent animal = A company that I don't want to do business with.

You aren't trying to say that showing some scantily clad women is equivalent to killing, are you?


Besides, Jillian Michaels and Danica Patrick are willing participants.


You are connecting the actions of the CEO with the actions of the company. I am making a point about the culture of a company that actively promotes themselves with sexist advertising campaigns. They are free to do as they wish and I am free to suggest that supporting a company that promotes themselves in this manner is also supporting the attitude in our culture that 'women==objects for our amusement' and is rewarding them for adopting that attitude for profit.

[addressing a sibling comment] Yes, the actors in the ads are willing participants...and that matters why?

One useful way we have of responding to corporations is by not participating in their activity if we do not agree with them. And yet, this ability is horribly underused. Don't like sexism? Don't support companies that rely on it. Don't like violence? Don't support companies that participate in it?

I just find it interesting where people draw the lines.


Almost every CEO in the country is responsible for killing "innocent" animals, since most are not vegetarian. Most are paying others to do it for them and are eating it themselves, but why is that morally better?


This is a form of blood sport (i.e. killing for personal entertainment). Animals that are destined for human consumption aren't generally killed for entertainment.


@locopati You are right. The difference is in where people draw the lines.

@travisp I've heard this logic before. Your girlfriend perhaps eats beef. Ask her to take a chainsaw and chop a cow for her next meal. She'll tell you how the two things are different.


Why did the village need Bob to shoot the elephant? What, the villagers do not have guns? or do not know how to use them? these guys use AK-47 since childhood and those villagers are much better hunters than an american rich guy who just arrived on a helicopter. The real story is that local villagers are not allowed to kill elephants and are fined if they do so. the american smartass bribed corrupted local government to let him shoot the elephant. Local corrupted head of municipality gets a couple of thousands of dollars (which makes him the richest man in the surrounding are) and the american guy (and his brand) gain cheap publicity back at home. everybody wins, except the elephant, but who cares about the elephant, right?


> The real story is that local villagers are not allowed to kill elephants and are fined if they do so.

The real back-story is that Zimbabwe used to have a fairly urbanized population. Many young people worked in cities and larger towns (and only their parents had homes in rural areas).

Zanu-PF is strong in rural areas. The reason for this are numerous - it is much easier to co-opt tribal leadership, easier to organize genocide (e.g. Gukurukundi) and more difficult for opposition groups to organize in rural areas. The opposition (Movement for Democratic Change) had its roots in the trade union movement - which was undoubtedly urban.

By destroying the formal economy and urban settlements (e.g. Murambatsvina) Mugabe forced urban people to do one of two things: 1. Become illegal immigrants in South Africa. 2. Become subsistence farmers in rural areas.

With this he accomplished his goals – illegal immigrants in other countries can’t vote and those in rural areas came under his power.

So this is what you are sitting with now: a large formerly urban population busying itself with subsistence farming to try and eek out a living (while living in squalor with a low life expectancy).

> the american smartass bribed corrupted local government to let him shoot the elephant.

There are actually two problems. Firstly, all Zimbabwean game farms are basically completely poached of animals. People need food and bushmeat is as good as any.

Secondly, expensive game (such as Rhino) was hunted illegally.

I doubt the second case is of concern – since elephants are not that expensive.


I doubt that even a video of Parsons raping small children would affect their sales. As long as they are slightly cheaper than other registrars and offer the same functionality, they will always have customers. People don't vote with their wallets, and have very short memories anyway.

(DNS is something I consider too important to delegate to the lowest bidder, but I am apparently a minority.)


It's strange that people will pay $5 for a cup of Starbucks for the convenience and atmosphere, but insist on saving $3/year by going with the most obnoxious DNS registrar.

You couldn't pay me enough to have to put up with the GoDaddy bullshit. I have no idea why anyone does. It basically costs nothing extra to choose a registrar that respects you and provides a non-ridiculous interface.


The part that struck me the most odd is he claims that this is the most fulfilling thing he does. He must be pretty hard up for fulfilling activities.


He sees himself as the hero of the village. Practically a superhero to these Africans.

You don't see how a massive narcissist would find that fulfilling?


I don't see how he'd find it more fulfilling than being CEO of a massively successful tech company.


In my opinion, the animal cruelty side of this pails in comparison to the total and utter obtuseness of playing an AC/DC track over the top of a bunch of people who are clearly starving scrambling for a hunk of meet like some post apocalyptic nightmare!!

It doesn't really surprise me coming from this guy because the he is obviously obtuse (NASCAR sponsorship, Pamela Anderson ads etc.) but I found the graphic pictures of the slaughtered elephant far less confronting than the fact that he turned the life or death struggle of these desperate people into a sideshow spectacle for his PR exercise.


Anyone who has had the misfortune of registering a domain with GoDaddy and using its horrible user interface to try to adjust DNS settings will not be surprised by this.

GoDaddy should have been out of business a long time ago just due to the horrid usability of its product.


"Meant to buy 1 domain at GoDaddy; receipt also shows 3 yachts, a skank in a tanktop, and 11 yrs of "WebPlus+ Turbo SomethingSomething™."

http://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/1553046234


I like the implication that companies with bad UI are likely to have bloodthirsty sociopaths as CEOs.


> Anyone who has had the misfortune of registering a domain with GoDaddy

Thanks god no. When I started publishing websites the webmaster forums were full with warnings about GoDaddy :)


  It's not a crime to kill an elephant.
  It's bigger than all that.
  It's a sin to kill an elephant.     
  Do you understand? It's a sin.    
  It's the only sin that you can buy
  a license and go out and commit.
  That's why I want to do it before
  I do anything else in this world.
  Do you understand me?
  Of course you don't.
  How could you?
  I don't understand myself.
Clint Eastwood, "White Hunter Black Heart"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100928/


This is stupid. If the elephant is going to be shot by a warden anyway, WHY NOT let some rich american shoot it? Why does it matter WHO shoots the elephant? It doesn't!

If you want to argue about whether the elephant SHOULD have been killed, that's fine. There is plenty to debate there. But who does the shooting is of no importance.

That said he's right that as a CEO you represent your company--especially when you're handing out swag. Probably not a smart PR move.


He addressed that in the article: because "there is an immediate opportunity to mark more animals than needed as 'problematic' or 'diseased' than is really the case and that would cloud the issue considerably."

As a thought experiment imagine some rich guy offers a tremendous amount of money (let's say millions) to allow authorities to perform an execution of a death row inmate. To allow that would be playing with fire. The government now has a financial interest in having more inmates on death row, as opposed to simply serving the public interest.


He explained it - it gives an incentive for marking more elephants as "problem elephants" than needed.

I wonder if a couple of fence (electric) might be a better solution than shooting the elephant. And all I saw in the video was a couple of square meters of trampled grass. I wonder what animal court in the world would give the death sentence for that.


It might look just like trampled grass, to you, but it's Sorghum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum) which a subsistence farmer was growing so he could feed himself, and to him it was the difference between eating and starving. It's ridiculous to glibly dismiss the farmer's worries about STARVING because you didn't see much damage in the video.

And do you really think a poor village in remote Zimbabwe is going to have the electricity (and money) to put up an electric fence around all their fields?


Would I be very far off if I would guess that a single photo safari for taking pictures of living elephants would earn more money than the whole village makes in farming the whole year?

Maybe they can't afford electric fences, but the GoDaddy guy surely could. Also now I remember in the Zoo they also don't have electric fences. It sounds doable to me - certainly not more effort than for example building those rice terraces other countries seem to manage.

Maybe these farmers really have no choice, which would be a purely political problem. They are definitely picking the wrong solution, though.


Do they even have electrical service in that village - and more specifically in some distant field?


I don't think electricity is needed, just some wall or burrow. Or even just some trees?


Wood is in very short supply in that part of the world. And building a wall strong enough to stop an elephant, and big (long) enough to cover a farm is really really hard without power tools.


Killing an elephant without power tools is really hard, too, yet they managed it easily.

Even if your arguments are correct that the villagers are so poor that they have no choice (which I doubt), it all crumbles down when the rich hunters come into play. Surely they have enough money and tools to erect a wall.


In other countries farmers built this: http://www.destination360.com/asia/philippines/images/s/bana...

I am pretty sure they did it without power tools, too, back in the day.


Did you notice that the herd of villagers did more damage to the crops than the elephant?


Zimbabwe used to be a freakin' breadbasket before Mugabe wrecked it.


I wonder what the best way to cook corn-fed elephant is? Maybe montreal steak seasoning, a cajun dry-rub, southern-style malt vinegar bbq sauce, something else (http://funkymunky.co.za/elephantstew.html)?

But, seriously, if we as a society are so concerned about dwindling elephant numbers, why aren't we actively managing them as a luxury food source instead of leaving them to their own devices on the savannah where they frequently(?) tick-off the locals. Why aren't there enterprising elephant ranchers in the open spaces of Texas? I would think that mesquite-scrub country would be great elephant habitat. That rancher is going to make damn sure he has a sustainable population of elephants, because if he doesn't, there goes his livelihood. And, I imagine that the rancher could profit handsomely off of just the pure novelty of the product. I know I would pay quite a bit for elephant steaks.


Because basic supply and demand suggests that their are way more rich Americans wanting to shoot elephants than there are elephants in need of shooting.

Ergo: the idea itself isn't sustainable, economically or morally.


Charge them a license fee to shoot the elephants in need of shooting, and increase that fee until supply meets demand.

Now its sustainable economically, if possibly not morally.


Yes because rich and stable African governments are completely able to ensure their wildlife is protected properly in the same way a western country can.

I like the free market too, but let's be reasonable here. We can dump money into Africa at far greater levels than they can sustainably support.


If only elephant supply was so easy to control...


It has precious little to do with the legality or morality of the action. Circumstances don't really matter here.

What "matters" is that you have a picture and video clip that can fuel a he said / she said segment on all the 24 hour news channels and various organizations now have something they can spin for their own purposes. CEOs should know better.


And they do. Any publicity is good publicity.


"Any publicity is good publicity" - tell that to Enron and Lindsay Lohan.


What in the world does Enron have to do with a publicity stunt? They committed fraud and went bankrupt. How is that like shooting an elephant and putting it on youtube?

And Lohan, she's still making movies. Where's the problem?


Well, Ms. Lohan has been bounced from a couple of movies now due to her publicity, and the quote didn't have "stunt" in it and Enron certainly became a household name but not in a good way.


What a truly awful stunt & person. How can he even live with himself for this?


I think that attitude is a bit harsh. Does it make him a bad person? I disagree. While I can't imagine doing such things, I understand that people have vastly different values regarding many topics and aren't trying to be evil regardless of how opposed the values are to others.

I agree that in this particular case its a bad move to release this publicly because he is a leader of a major company and shouldn't invite such controversy.


>Does it make him a bad person?

yes. While i think all killers are bad persons, i see how a necessary killing may be up for debate. Jumping at the first chance to kill and doing it willingfully indicates that the person is a moral trash.


Can't believe this thing. I bought a domain name just 5 minutes back, and now I am feeling disgust.

I have around 60 domains with godaddy, and after watching this I don't think I will go for any more. Let the unimportant ones expire this year, and I'll transfer the rest to somewhere else.

Can someone suggest me a good registrar?


I have thirty domains registered with GoDaddy. I'm taking all of them somewhere else now - just need to figure out who the best competitor to go to is.


In the grand scheme of things, my 27 domains switched from GoDaddy won't change much from their company's perspective, but I will not continue to use them as a domain registrar because of this.


Actually, it will. What if a 1000 customers like you who own 10 domains do it at the same day?

They sure HAVE to notice it. I've already transferred my domains and I'll make sure I won't buy any from GoDaddy again.

GoDaddy already has one of the scammiest UIs I've ever come across (with a possible exception of, maybe, MySpace) and the recent elephant killing was the last straw!


It's a private company, run by a very opinionated individual with a demonstrated lack of concern for the feelings of others.

He might notice, but he's making so much money that I really doubt he cares.


Well, you're right - he might not care but next time he'd think a million times before killing yet another helpless creature and posting a shameless video of it.


But where to transfer to? NameCheap? 1&1?


I have had my domains with Name.com as well as NameCheap for more than half a decade.

Name.com's interface is a little confusing and NameCheap have great customer service!


Gandi.net seems to have a good reputation here on HN, and I like them myself.


I liked Gandi.net's attitude but I couldn't get over their prices. I ended up at dynadot.com which has a fairly busy home page but a pretty clean UI when dealing with your account. It's prices are more in line with what I expect and they seem to have a good reputation.


Gandi is slightly more expensive than GoDaddy on domains with no extras, but if you want to anonymize your whois data, the combined price of the domain + the anonymization is cheaper with Gandi than with GoDaddy.


This is the final straw for me, godaddy has a horrible UI that looks like a toplinks page and functions much the same I presume. I've been wanting to move my domains from godaddy for years, but haven't due to laziness. What are the best alternatives?


Thanks for putting this out there. Just transferred my domains and hosting away from GoDaddy. I won't even get into how I hate the needless killing of ANY animal. There are almost always alternatives.


Well, I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular response, but anyway.

Firstly, I'm not really referring to this specific case. I think the video is tasteless and in many ways vile. However, I want to comment specifically on trophy hunting.

In my opinion, allowing big game hunters to pay for trophy animals is an important and integral part of animal conservation. In many impoverished African countries, their is little to no government funding to conserve animals.

Yes, there are risk factors. But personally, I believe the additional amount of animals that are killed due to the argument of excess demand is a lot less than the number of animals saved by the increased funding for poaching prevention.

Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of this to the local community hugely improve the lives of the local people (who I believe are a lot more important than the elephants, as important as I think the elephants are), and that this improvement will decrease poaching.

To summarize: - I agree that Trophy hunting can have negative effects. - However, I believe the positives for animal conservation of Trophy Hunting offset the negatives in two major ways. - Trophy Hunting decreases the ease with which poaching takes place by funding anti-poaching measures. - Trophy Hunting decreases the extent to which poaching takes place by improving the situation of the local communities.

So if you are pro animal conservation, and pro human rights, you should be pro Trophy Hunting. IMHO.


How can you damage a trashy, publicity-stunt-driven brand by shooting an elephant?

You can't.

GoDaddy is light-years ahead of the competition in terms of marketing.

He may have lost several thousand bucks do to some discerning geeks, which is not the GoDaddy customer anyway.

Nothing to see here.


This is terrible. Anyone have any suggestions for a registrar to switch to from GoDaddy?


I have been with Gandi for years. They are a bit more expensive than some other other registrars, but offer good service, and donate proceeds to non-profit projects:

http://en.gandi.net/supports/


Not to mention they have excellent support for domains with different tld's and offer an SSL certificate free for one year with each domain.


See:

- Namecheap promotion [HN discussion] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2390764

- Ask YC: Who's your favorite domain registrar and why? [2008] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=150561


I recently moved to name.com. I absolutely love their minimalistic interface, and I like supporting local business (Denver)...

So far no issues what so ever other than with GoDaddy and moving domains over because of issues with whois, but once there everything is fast, and simple. Unlike GoDaddy's interface.


I'm a former customer of name.com.

I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but the thing that drove me away was their spammy DNS.

Example: I had valid DNS records for mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com but they were forwarding ANYTHING.mydomain.com to one of their ad-ridden pages.

I can kind of see an argument for having that when a domain has just been purchased and there is no valid content yet. But doing that to an established site makes ME look like a spammer.

tl;dr - if you're using name.com's DNS, you might want to see if they're hosting spam pages on whatever.yourdomain.com


I do my own DNS hosting, I've never used a registrars DNS services, I've never found them to be reliable enough, nor do they meet my needs in terms of being able to update records quickly or in programmatic way (such as hosting my own DynDNS like service, keeping a record updated for my home IP address).


I've been happy with Namecheap and I believe they're running a promotion specifically for people switching from godaddy.


NameCheap.


DNSimple (dnsimple.com) is great, also offering a promotion and 'escape hatch' from godaddy.


I needed to purchase a name today.

BTW, I found this...

GODADDY.COM TRADEMARK LIST

Below find a list of Go Daddy's registered and pending trademarks. Please note that these brand guidelines apply to, but are not limited to, the following marks.

Registered Trademarks

Blue Razor® Blue Razor Logo Black/White Bob Parsons® CashParking® Cool Name. Hot Prices.® Daddy® Domain Alert® Domain Name Aftermarket® DomainNameAftermarket.com® Domains By Proxy® Domains By Proxy Logo with Star Domains Priced Right® Express Email Marketing® Go Daddy® Go Daddy Head Logo Go Daddy Logo with Star GoDaddy.com® GoDaddy.com Logo GoDaddy.com Logo on Black GoDaddy.com Logo with Tagline Go Daddy Auctions® Go Daddy Cares® Go Daddy Connections Logo Go Daddy Girls® Go Daddy Hosting Connection® Go Daddy Marketplace® GoDaddy.tv® Hot Prices. Serious Support.® Mad Dog® Mad Dog Domains and Cattle Company® Mad Dog Logo Make A .COM Name With Us!® Online File Folder® Quick Blogcast® Quick Shopping Cart® Radio Go Daddy® SmartRegistration® SmartSpace® SSL Certificate Logo Starfield® Starfield Logo StealthRay® The Web is Your Domain!® The Web is Your Domain! Logo There's A Name For People Like You!® Traffic Blazer® Traffic Blazer Logo Transfer Concierge® Turbo SSL® Verified by Starield Secure® Verified by Starfield Secure Logo WebSite Tonight® Wild West® Wild West Domains Logo on White Your identity is nobody's business but ours.®

Pending Trademarks

4GH™ Claim Your Domain™ Data Center on Demand™ Data Widgets™ Domains, websites & everything* in between!™ Domains, websites & everything* in between! Logo Dream Design Team™ Dream Design Team Logo Expert Hands™ Go Daddy Savings Network™ GoDaddy.co™ GoDaddy.co Logo GoDaddy.com SSL Seal Logo Social Visibility™ Video.ME™ We Make Websites Easy™ Web Professionals' Day™ Website Protection Seal Logo


Well, GoDaddy is getting mentioned on HN and Reddit, so... mission accomplished?

Personally, I got fed up with their insulting commercials, horrible interface, and crappy service long ago. I've since switched registrars and haven't regretted it for a second.


GoDaddy has now lost all current and any future custom they might have had from me.


Facts: 1) GoDaddy has been doing crazy stunts forever (see rejected Super Bowl ads) 2) GoDaddy is the largest registrar, with 31% market share (http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global)

Given the above, I would say: 1) He knows exactly what he is doing and why 2) It is working*

*meaning growing the company, making lots of money, returning value to shareholders etc.


I like the ad unit at the top of the blog page.



Oh Google!


I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart: "I may never be able to intelligibly explain human cruelty, but I'll know it when I see it". Looking forward to seeing him on the news circuit dancing around like a, uhm..., wounded elephant.


Well, I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular response, but anyway.

Firstly, I'm not really referring to this specific case. I think the video is tasteless and in many ways vile. However, I want to comment specifically on trophy hunting.

In my opinion, allowing big game hunters to pay for trophy animals is an important and integral part of animal conservation. In many impoverished African countries, their is little to no government funding to conserve animals.

Yes, there are risk factors. But personally, I believe the additional amount of animals that are killed due to the argument of excess demand is a lot less than the number of animals saved by the increased funding for poaching prevention.

Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of this to the local community hugely improve the lives of the local people (who I believe are a lot more important than the elephants, as important as I think the elephants are), and that this improvement will decrease poaching.

To summarize: - I agree that Trophy hunting can have negative effects. - However, I believe the positives of Trophy Hunting offset the negatives in two major ways:


I cringed seeing the neighboring villagers trampling the same field that the elephants had been trampling. Talk about unintended consequences.


GoDaddy is one skanky company. Buying a domain is a chore. You have to walk through a minefield of up sells. The ads are gross. All that hassle is just not worth the couple dollars I save every year.


Not sure you really save anything anymore. I've moved most to omnis.com - renewals are < $9 - even less with bulk discounts. GoDaddy is now >$10 for renewals unless you scavenge some coupon. No coupon needed at omnis.com.


What "Brand"? We ARE talking about the same company that puts out ads which double as Cinemax's 11pm lineup, right?


Slaughtering an endangered species and women in tank tops are hardly on the same level.


Absolutely, but it's not like this should be the moment when it suddenly becomes clear GoDaddy is a skeezy company run by scumbags.


No, but it's like they've been digging themselves into a hole. Then they break throw to a seemingly bottomless pit, and decide it's a good idea to jump in to see how deep it is.


I agree that it's a horrible stunt, but I don't see how it can harm GoDaddy's reputation. As far as I am concerned, GoDaddy's reputation is so far down in the dumps that it is difficult for it to sink any lower, and that is based on their behavior as a registrar, not stunts by the CEO.


This merely ensures that I will never use GoDaddy's services, and I'll also advise others not to use them.


Bad taste, up, down, left, and right. He removed any reverence of the hunt, respect of the animal. Just him, his orange hats, his gun, his camera, his killing, his audio track of choice, his vacation video. Ugly rich guy video #93,275


GoDaddy will need an extra sexy ad campaign to calm the crowd. Maybe Danica Patrick will ride an elephant.

Elephant killing aside, I can't use GoDaddy's hosting/domain control panel. Settings feel buried under layers of links and is just confusing.


Never using GoDaddy again. I'm not a vegetarian or a leftist, but glorifying the murder of an endangered species is sickening.


Just finished transferring all my domains.


There can be no explanation for this. I think we should all boycott GoDaddy.


Godaddy sucks and has for... ever. I've been with Namecheap and I'd recommend them any day.



Remember when Acclaim seriously considered advertising its games on tombstones?

Yeah, way to top that in the lack of taste department.

Guess who I'm not registering domains with.


You have to wonder who is/are the animal(s) here?


Could be worse... "The last license to hunt Bushmen was reportedly issued in Namibia by the South African government in 1936. " - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0102/feature6/


This isn't something I'd do, but doesn't really seem like the biggest outrage ever.

There is one rifle shot which would remove a clear threat to everyone in Zimbabwe and the region. If the CEO of someone like Xe flew in and took that shot, I'd be happy to transfer all my domains to his company. (Mugabe, obviously)


I don't think this will have any tangible effect on GoDaddy's brand except for maybe a slight increase in visibility via the free press you are giving them right this second.

As far as actually shooting the animal, I'm not an African game warden so I can't give any scientific or even remotely educated comment. That being said, the only facts I know are these: Bob Parsons shot and killed an elephant in a completely legal way, and was so proud of what he did that he had a professional make and edit a video which he then posted on the internet. The people in the video seem grateful and excited that he has done this. They are also wearing godaddy hats. This morning, a lot of people who weren't there are passing judgement.

I guess I'm just confused as to the source of the controversy?


I would agree with most on here, this is par for the course considering the companies branding already, which is pretty cheap low rent stuff. He's coming across as the "dickish" "most interesting man in the world" here. And I agree it should be a game warden duty to handle such situations, for the same reason McD's wouldn't allow old food to be eaten by employees, because it would increase the chances of there being more "old food." But the thing that really bugs me is the end, why not have it properly butchered and dispersed that way? Instead of something that reminds me of Bum Fights. Class is obviously not part of their branding in anyway.


GoDaddy had a positive brand before? I didn't realize there was anything left to damage.


I see that most of the folks here are choosing to discuss the morality of this video; some are electing to defend, and some showing disapproval.

What I'm finding odd about these reactions is that, viewing other people's reactions (outside of the delicate shell of opinion here), the clear conclusion is that this is a PR disaster. From the Twitter search alone, in the last 2-3 minutes, my feed has gone up easily hundreds of entries, all of them agreeing about their distaste for this event.

Isn't that where the real knowledge is, here? Whether or not you agree that this was a bad decision, it undeniably harms the brand in what could be a catastrophic way.


Following in the footsteps of Thomas Edison? [1] I've never been a fan of the phrase "Any publicity is good publicity." But damaging the brand? I don't know that it rises to that level. Because the guy slaughter's elephants you think he can't maintain a credible domain registry? Now if he was running a shelter for abandoned big game animals, sure it would be a challenge but this is the guy who uses large mammary glands as a marketing tool.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_%28elephant%29


I dropped a mail to GoDaddy regarding this. Here's the response from their side:

----------------------

Our Office of the President has responded to your request, details of which are described below:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion about Mr. Parsons' recent trip to Zimbabwe.

As you may be aware Mr. Parsons has also made several comments regarding this on his Vlog at BobParsons.me which you may wish to review. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in making any final determination about your relationship with GoDaddy.com.

We thank you again for your time and feedback.

Regards,

The Office of the President

---------------------


This was a reasonable post when it was about it was stupid to mix up GoDaddy's corporate image with this stuff. But this:

> It's a good thing that I have all my domains with another registrar or I'd be forced to move them.

is way over the top. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. If you choose to buy into the "CEO image = corporate image" thing, then fine, move your business elsewhere. But I kind of thought the point of the post was that it's kind of silly, but yeah, people do conflate those things.


GoDaddy is essentially 100% owned by Bob Parsons. I've heard that their marketing department dislikes the Super Bowl ads almost as much as the rest of us, but the final call rests with Bob.


I don't think its any more stupid than them trying to associate scantily clad women with a domain name registrar. At least he actually has something to do with the company. It might be different if the models actually helped you fill out the forms, but they don't, they have nothing to do with the process, except creating a memory associated with the company name. It is a live by the sword die by the sword situation when it comes to brand identity.


Look at all these passionate discussions. Positively and negatively charged, both sides full of fiery opinion.

I thought this was supposed to be a terrible publicity stunt. I say it worked.


Whether or not someone agrees that killing the elephant in this particular circumstance was warranted, I definitely feel like a CEO going into a foreign country and culture, killing an animal and making it into a publicity stunt is offensive and distasteful.

It also seems like many other CEOs would have been crucified for doing this. But for some reason Parsons is getting much less flack than would the CEO of Wal-mart, Monsanto or McDonald's. Why is that?


So much for Groupon's Super Bowl commercial looking bad ...


So, Bob, how many customers is one dead elephant worth? Next time you could leave the film crew at home maybe? Or would that subvert your whole point?


Hi All,

Having been involved in wildlife conservation for nearly three and half a decades and trying to address human-elephant conflicts for nearly 16 years what I can say in all honesty is that elephant control is a double-edged sword. There are no utopian answers or solutions to these issues either. When it comes to human-elephant conflicts unlike in the proverbial biblical story where the lion and the lamb lied down together, people and elephants cannot do the same. One has to give away to the other. I think in regard to Bob Parsons’ affair everyone is too focused on what he did on the basis of the moral implications of shooting an elephant as pertinent to western sentiments and emotions and how elephants are perceived in the west. I really wonder how many even paid the slightest attention or took notice of the farmer whose sorghum field was destroyed or gave thought to how he and his family is affected or for that matter the protein starved and raggedy rural masses that descended on the elephant once it was shot. The average Zimbabwean is living in abject poverty and I doubt their perspective of elephants is anywhere close to that of the people of the west. Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - only caring about their daily survival. Since I live on both sides of this divide – I’m fortunate to see both sides of this coin but also it is frustrating because these completely opposing perspectives can be a huge hindrance to addressing these issues in a realistic manner. For example if we can step outside the western mentality box and look at it from a different perspective (from a poor Zimbabwean farmer’s point of view) – probably Bob Parsons is in fact doing a huge favor to the farmers. African elephants are not a threatened species in any imminent danger of extinction. In fact they are now too many elephants in the Southern African nations. But from a South Asian and western perspective Bob Parsons has done the unthinkable – which is to kill an elephant and then glorify it by putting it on public display! For that he should be ostracized and penalized. There is no glory in killing an elephant considering it is humans who have created the situation where they too are fighting for survival. If an elephant has to be killed then it should be done with dignity, respect and with the empathy it deserves.

The cost to immobilize and relocate a problem bull elephant in Sri Lanka cost on average US$5,000. In Africa it could be more considering the vast distances that need to be covered. I’ll try to get this information. In Sri Lanka trans-locating problem animals is a futile exercise since you are basically transferring the problem to another area. For example if earlier the problem bull was terrorizing a 50 square mile area – after it is translocated it terrorizes a 500 square mile area because now it’s trying to find itself back to its home territory.

Welcome to addressing human-elephant conflicts in the truest sense.

Best,

Ravi Corea -

There will be a site for this but this just was emailed to me, trying to keep speed


Hi Ravi,

You seem like a well-meaning guy, but this line of yours is total nonsense.

"Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - only caring about their daily survival"

For the record, starvation simply wasn't an issue under colonial rule. There were plenty of other problems, to be sure, but getting enough food wasn't one of them. Nor was there any problem with farming in general. Indeed, Rhodesia (as it was then known) boasted some of the most productive farms in Africa, which was no small feat, given that the land itself is a high and rocky plateau, and not a lush, agricultural wonderland.

The rampant starvation is the singular product of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power since 1980. Unlike the white farmers, he's actually responsible for honest-to-god genocide (aimed at the Matabele tribe, who live in the southern part of the country.) And by 'genocide', I mean murdering 10,000 men and throwing the bodies down empty mineshafts. Also, all that hunger? Yeah, it wasn't just the product of gross incompetence. Some of that was a matter of policy - literally starving his political opponents into submission.

Seriously, Ravi, are you honestly not aware that this guy is one of the nastiest dictators alive today? Do you not understand that he's managed to turn one of the most prosperous sub-Saharan countries into one of the world's severest basket-cases. How can you talk at length about the situation in Zimbabwe without even MENTIONING Mugabe? That's like talking about The Great Leap Forward while ignoring Mao Tse-Tung.

It's just ridiculous.


Another twist - in countries where rich idiots can pay to slaughter an elephant, the game wardens have an incentive (and the resources) to manage the populations (i.e. move problem elephants, and fight poachers). In countries without hunting permits, the whole system is underfunded, making it much easier for poachers to move in.


"In fact they are now too many elephants in the Southern African nations"

I am not sure if the elephants themselves would agree with that statement.

Obviously it is a complex issue, but I can't help feeling that the villagers chose the worst of all options. Did they at least get some money for the shooting license?


I really like how he through in some ACDC while all the hugry people are fighting for the food. Classy.


Offered as advice: s/through/threw/


So it is ok to have show on cable TV where people shoot animals for fun (or our politicians doing that) and but we are disgusted of killing animal for food and protect the crops.

This is good very PR move because it hits the center of hypocrisy in wester societies: our "love" of animals.


I hate godaddy to death, guys, but I use them because they offer most tlds around the world easily (me, ly, at, to, etc)(that's the only easy thing they do)

If you can name at least five registrars with world wide reach please do so, so we can have a better option next time.


I guess I'll leave this here: http://mashable.com/2011/04/01/bob-parsons-elephant-story/

Caution: Ignore if you prefer the stereotype of an exposed rich white game hunter.


I haven't watched the video (I'm at work now), but are elephants currently protected? I recently read about a program where African elephants are being sterilized because the populations have grown so large that they're becoming a problem.


I blame Disney. Killing an Elephant that is clearly a pest is no different than the thousands of businessmen that shoot Deer and Tahr for sport every year.

Dickish move by Bob tho, he's truly testing the adage that "any publicity is good publicity".


>Killing an Elephant that is clearly a pest

from the point of view of any super-human civilization, humans are clearly pests of the planet Earth, not an intelligent civilization to have contact with.


Obviously late to the discussion, but surprised no one has posted a link to this famous Orwell essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant


I feel for the hungry guys shown in the video but still looking at the way those guys are cutting the meat and hovering over the dead animal's body just reminds me of a quote from matrix by Mr.Smith: Humans are parasites.


ok, so who can recommend a good domain company I can transfer all my domains to?



It's almost as if Achewood's 2011 predictions are coming true three months early: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=01052011


It's brilliant. They just drove away hordes of geeks - you know those pesky techies who only buy the loss leaders without loading up on the profitable stuff?


Where do I think he went wrong? Passing out the hats. I was fine up until that point. This isn't for a GoDaddy commercial. Sheesh.


I thought this sort of thing died off with Teddy Roosevelt, so it was interesting to learn what kind of people still do it.


the worst part about this is that it totally worked on me. I now know about their video.me product.


Any chance this is just an April Fool's joke with a whole lot of time put into it? :P


There is no bad publicity.


It's not April Fools?


Going falconing is on my bucket list, so I can't get too angry.


I will be on the phone with each and every person I know who has a domain.

We will discuss whether or not they happen to be using this cowardly imbecile's business.

I will describe this horrible little gutless advertising stunt.

We will work to switch them over to another company immediately.


Together, we can end violence against elephants!


If Bob is so invested in selfless help, why doesn't he drop some cash and build a fence to permanently keep the elephants out?

Also, to those suggesting that killing this elephant is chill because it fed a lot of people, I'm pretty sure there are more cost effective ways to feed people than mobilizing an elephant hunting squad.


Having grown up around guns and hunting, I can tell you this guy's story just sounds worse and worse. Laws and hunting ethics generally precludes use of artificial illumination to hunt by, cf:

http://www.africahunting.com/hunting-africa/1321-namibian-ph...

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37704-3...

No "fair chase" here. Somebody quoted Parson's as claiming it was completely dark as he lay in wait for a hungry elephant to walk right into a field of, well, elephant food. If that's the case, he either used artificial illumination to shoot, or there was no very good way for him to tell whether he was shooting a cow with calf, a calf, or even one of the villagers he now so adamantly (after he gets called on it) and frankly unbelievably insists was the true mission of this hunt...a mission that just happened to come complete with film crew and GoDaddy logo for everyone.

Sounds fishy. I don't fish (or hunt) anymore.


Let's count the ways in which the media, twitter, and even HN can be hypocritical:

Driving cars that pollute the environment and force the US to wage continous war to secure oil. Supporting a food industry that is killing us. Support raising my taxes so you can live a better life. Use an inordinate amount of energy, water which is scarce. Live wonderful lives with nice furniture, clothes, etc that are made by really poor people the world over. Take trips all over the place, using more oil. Sit at home watching TV and being entertained instead of being productive and fixing problems (yes, this too is a sin). Have bad children that will grow up to be murderers, theives, leaches, and knownothings because you're too busy whining about some guy hunting an elephant. Have supported tons of politicians that serve to further their own interests and that of their corporate sponsors.

I could go on and on and on before I finally get to:

Legally shot and killed an elephant which was destroying crops in an African country.

If I switched my domains from GoDaddy for this, I'd pretty much have to withdraw from American society for good, in order to be on decent moral ground.


I think many of you are missing the point. One could argue both for and against killing the elephants. I think what's important here, and this is just a guess on my part, is that 1) I believe that Parsons was using this as an excuse to kill some really big wild game in Africa to show how "manly" he is; and 2) he clearly enjoyed it as evidenced by the big smile on his face in the pictures. For comparison, American Indians used to kill buffalo but I don't think they gloated over it as Parsons is doing. They had reverence for the buffalo and demonstrated that by using every bit of each buffalo they killed. Parsons, on the other hand, just did it for the thrill of the kill and that, to me, is wrong.

By the way, I moved all of my domains off GoDaddy last year. I got tired of paying above-market prices just so that GoDaddy could create those lame Super Bowl commercials. Also, their UI sucks.


What amazes me is that anyone here cares about GoDaddy, and as much as it pains me to imagine, there are probably people here that do business with GoDaddy.

It's a shame really. Your loss.


This is going to have about as much effect on GoDaddy's userbase and bottom line as did all of the privacy concerns last year with Facebook.

A sliver of a fraction of GoDaddy customers will ever see that video or even hear about it. Most people buy domains there because they have hot chicks in super bowl commercials.


Technically it was two shots...


On the other hand NRA members might now choose GoDaddy as their registrar and webhost.


Well, NO. I believe in the bill of rights, but I do not condone the hunting of elephants.


What do you use a gun for if not killing people or animals?


He didn't say he didn't use guns for killing people or animals. Depending on the circumstances, he probably would, as would I (and I've never touched a gun in my life). That doesn't imply support for hunting elephants.


I dont mind the downvotes but I could like the education on what people who believe in gun rights believe in.


I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. I don't currently own a gun, but that is more because of my life circumstances than belief.

I believe in gun rights because I have had relatives / personally been protected from both people and animals (feral dogs) by gun ownership. I believe weakening any of the bill of rights provides avenues to weaken the others. I also believe that it is an important counter balance to authority figures becoming despots. Mostly I just see guns as another tool and have serious problems with saying an object did something when it is the person who did. Plus, most of the gun stat stories were done narrowly and didn't include rural areas (did a stint in the social work area).

So, I understand the purpose, but am horrified by the picture and do not think NRA membership is a factor in the reaction to the picture.


If you're genuinely interested (and not just trolling): http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp...


Thanks for the link. I shall read it. I wasnt trolling, but I come from a country where we won our freedom with a non violent movement so the point of guns is largely missing from my cultural upbringing. In my opinion 10 million people uprising is sufficient for any government - with or without guns. That being said I will read the book and will not comment on this conversation any further so that it doesnt derail the original post.


The motivation of pro-gun people generally falls into one of three categories:

1. Self/property protection 2. Fun/sport/hunting 3. Assertion of constitutional rights( and sometimes duty )

That said, this thread is in danger of political derailment.


yeah, sorry - just a little touchy on the whole NRA = killing elephants is ok.


I dont mind the downvotes but I could like the education on what people who believe in gun rights believe in.

I don't currently own any guns, and am clumsy enough to be a threat to everybody within 1/4 mile if I did, but I do believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right, perhaps the most fundamental of all.

Historically, most deaths due to misuse of guns have occurred in times and places where the state has maintained a monopoly on the use of violence. It would be very hard to convince me that a disarmed populace is a net positive for society, over the long run.


All elephants are animals.

Not all animals are elephants.


Practice?


This is perfectly acceptable, and all the bravado about moving domains looks silly. Obviously, the local citizens (tour guides) in this video didn't want to tell the warden about the elephant.

Additionally, I have no doubt the owners of many registrars do objectionable things. The devil you know...




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: