Patterico's Pontifications


Which of These Comments on Tony Snow’s Death Is the Least Offensive?

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 4:12 pm

Here are four comments relating to Tony Snow’s death. Please tell me which is the least offensive:

There is special place in hell for Mr. Snow. As a co-conspirator of the Bush administration, I have no special sympathy for him. I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.


I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.




Anyone who would say they hope Tony Snow suffered is a dick.

The first three were approved by L.A. Times comment moderators. The fourth was left by me, and was not published. Subsequent comments have been approved, making it clear that my comment was rejected.

I’ll admit that I deliberately included the profanity to see if it would get the comment rejected.

Now, I understand that it’s easy to monitor comments for language and tricky to moderate them for content. But in what world is my comment more offensive than the first three?

Of the above comments, which ones bothered you? Which ones would you be worried about your children reading?

Truly, which is more offensive?

UPDATE: Commenter Jim reminds me that an anti-Snow commenter used the word “dick” — and his comment was posted:

Yes Alessandro I agree. The one of him with the horns made him look like a total dick. [Alessandro had said: "You picked a nice picture for your tribute." -- Patterico]

Interesting. I think this is worth a new post.


  1. Are they using an automated screening system that ahem doesn’t like “dick”.
    Substitute jackass and then maybe jerk.

    Comment by SteveG (71dc6f) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:35 pm

  2. Stop it. The LA Times has no leftward bias.

    You’re just tilting at windmills. Nothing to see here.

    I do think Mr. Snow would be delighted that at least some good has come of the sad event of his death. It is utterly blatant that the AP, LA Times, and the left blogosphere is just brimming with people who are too stupid to be critical without being extremely offensive, and those people have no heart.

    There’s this lie that being a progressive has something to do with being a kind person. It’s just the opposite, it turns out. It’s about power. That’s one last bit of news that Mr. Snow has helped shed more light on.

    Comment by Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:49 pm

  3. As a person who has lost two family members to cancer, #3 is the most offensive.

    The LA Times is helping the conservative movement by exposing the derangement that is so prevalent among the progressives.

    Comment by tyree (139bd6) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:55 pm

  4. Of the above comments, which ones bothered you? Which ones would you be worried about your children reading?

    Truly, which is more offensive?

    well…those three questions aren’t really the same. But we know what you mean and the last one’s the most relevant and any sane person already knows the answer. LAT = blinkered partisan jerks.

    Comment by no one you know (1ebbb1) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:56 pm

  5. Of the above comments, which ones bothered you? Which ones would you be worried about your children reading?
    I would say the one with the profanity (the fourth comment) if we are talking about what is not good for children. Just following your example Boss. :)

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:56 pm

  6. Juan, I’m pretty sure that Tony Snow was one person who would not have been delighted.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:03 pm

  7. Well, the fourth one isn’t as offensive because it’s not really about Tony Snow. Plus, why would anyone be offended by being compared to a detective?

    Comment by steve miller (0fb51f) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:11 pm

  8. I thought maybe the LA Times doesn’t like the word “dick.” So I did a Google site search. Oops! Too many mentions of Vice President Cheney to wade through. How about “dickhead.” Paydirt!,0,2551327.graffitiboard?slice=17&limit=10

    Take a look at comment 167. The comment was submitted less than two days ago.

    Looks like the LA Times didn’t like the content of your comment, not the language.

    Comment by Brent Logan (cb9f2e) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:23 pm

  9. What would be offensive would be comparing someone to Andy Dick.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:24 pm

  10. Patterico,

    The LA Times was NOT concerned about the word “dick” earlier. See your own post.

    Yes Alessandro I agree. The one of him with the horns made him look like a total dick. [Alessandro had said: "You picked a nice picture for your tribute." -- Patterico]

    Comment by Jim (dde045) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:25 pm

  11. It reminds me of Casablanca:

    “I am shocked Rick, shocked, to see gambling in this establishment.”

    “Your winnings, sir.”

    “Oh, thank you very much.”

    The use of the word “dick” was not the issue, as you posters have shown that other comments using that term were not rejected recently. Leftward comments are just fine. It’s a flexible yardstick.

    But I am glad you are showing more and more people what is going on in the MSM.

    Comment by Eric Blair (2708f4) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:34 pm

  12. Patterico, in all seriousness, try posting at LA Times again, only this time try something like this:

    “Anyone who would say they hope Tony Snow suffered is a cretin.”

    And see what happens. If it’s approved, then it was the D word that got you in “trouble”. If not… oh well…

    Comment by DubiousD (6556d8) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:50 pm

  13. I think its heartless and mean to say all those horrible things about Tony Snow. What happened to respect for the dead?
    And as a foot note humor, what the heck is wrong with the word “Dick”? Isnt that supposed to be a name? For example Dick Cheney, Dick Turpin, Dick Fosbury. It’s even used as short for Detective, Dick. How do you think people who have that name will be feeling about this? Dick is a legitimate name.

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:04 pm

  14. Truly, which is more offensive?

    That this,

    Anyone who would say they hope Tony Snow suffered is a dick.

    had to be said at all is the most offensive thing.

    Comment by doubleplusundead (9e73d9) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:04 pm

  15. I said it last night in your live chat. Retarded. And you can’t fix it. They belong on the ash heap of history.

    Comment by Chris (b6ebef) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:09 pm

  16. “Subsequent comments have been approved, …”
    Patterico, do you mean to say subsequent comments _by you_ were approved, or subsequent comments by others? If you haven’t tried leaving a “neutral” comment as a control, try it. They may be filtering out everything coming from your IP address(es), regardless of content, since you are their well-known nemesis.

    #6 hits the nail on the head.

    Comment by g Hussein p (ea9df7) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:24 pm

  17. Patterico, your whole premise that ‘offensive posts should be deleted’ is fraught with problems. I’m not saying you or the la times can’t delete them, I’m just saying you and they shouldn’t.

    It shows the true nature of the readers. 25% of them wanted the great Mr. Snow to suffer? Well, that is good to know, and should affect how many grains of salt you add when reading comments at this particular blog/newspaper.

    When you or the la times deletes them, it skews the information, often making a horrible position sound believable, since you’ve deleted the most horrible statements supporting that position. That’s unacceptable. Crazy speech is fixed by more free speech. But how can we speak about it if you’ve deleted it before we can read it?

    I can’t believe I’m siding with the fricken’ LA Times.

    Comment by Kevin (834f0d) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:29 pm

  18. How can you side with the LAT when they won’t publish the benign comment critical of the a@@h$les?

    Comment by Chris (b6ebef) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:34 pm

  19. It is like a little glimpse inside their soul.

    Comment by JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:49 pm

  20. Chris,

    I agree with Kevin but I don’t see it as siding with the LA Times. In fact, I don’t trust the Times to be fair when it moderates or censors comments, so I favor a system that limits both.

    Comment by DRJ (ec597e) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:55 pm

  21. Maybe there’s a threshold requirement in place then. At least (insert number) % must want to trash someone before they’ll publish disparaging comments on that person’s death. Maybe Pat was the only one (I doubt it though) critical of the moonbats and thus the percentage threshold wasn’t met. I’ll stick to my original take. It’s absolutely classless and clueless to allow those type of comments to appear in any publication which wishes to present itself as a serious journalistic undertaking. You can just close them off. Even the PuffHo moonbat editors were smart enough to know that.

    Comment by Chris (b6ebef) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:02 pm

  22. Patterico, your whole premise that ‘offensive posts should be deleted’ is fraught with problems.

    That’s not Pat’s premise. His premise is that if The Times deletes relatively benign posts which might contain an offensive word, but allows truly offensive posts with no naughty words, then they are doing their readers, their posters and the subjects of their articles a huge disservice.

    Comment by Steverino (1dda08) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:02 pm

  23. This is amazing. I tried posting an innocuous statement that was civil, but critical of the more distateful comments regarding Mr. Snow.

    It was not accepted.

    It contained no invective, no insults, nor profanity of any kind, and was really not confrontational.

    Apparently, all my awfulness was too much for the moderator to bear

    Comment by Brian (fcf819) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:42 pm

  24. Those people are on par with the Fred Phelps/Westboro Church crowd

    Comment by Brian (fcf819) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:55 pm

  25. Brian,
    Thanks for that confirmation. Must not criticize moonbats seems to be the operating premise. I’d do a riff on moral blindspots at the LAT but that would be giving them far too much credit. Moral vacuum is more like it.

    Comment by Chris (b6ebef) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:58 pm

  26. I just want to know what you have against penises. They don’t deserve that kind of comparison. I’ve had one all my life, and it’s true that it’s occasionally gotten me into trouble, but it’s never done anything remotely as tasteless as the grave-top dancing going on in the LA Times’ comments section.

    Comment by Beldar (d49c6c) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:12 pm

  27. Kevin

    The LA Times could remove the wordage of the comment and replaced it with something like “comment removed for violation of standards”

    Then the “the lying liar caused his own cancer” stuff isn’t there, but the highlighted void alerts the reader that something untoward did exist.

    Just my opinion. YMMV.

    Comment by Darleen (187edc) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:14 pm

  28. Tony Snow was a great guy who lived a great life, loved by everyone who knew him and well respected by his peers. He loved his country and he loved the people in it and they loved him. These cretins who would piss on his grave aren’t 1/1000th the human being he was, and aren’t fit to visit his grave, let alone defile it. Fuck them, they’re vermin.

    Rest in Peace, Tony. Thanks for everything.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:40 pm

  29. #27
    Well said Pablo. Well said.

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:44 pm

  30. Those people who left those vile comments are subhuman filth — they desperately need medical attention and psychiatric treatment.

    Comment by Richard Romano (3df804) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:23 pm

  31. What would Ann Coulter say?

    Well, if she called someone a faggot, the press would flip out on her, as we’ve seen. Let’s see what they do with the brutal denigration of a freshly dead guy who never had a bad word to say about anyone, a guy who even cared enough for Helen Freaking Thomas to reach out to her in illness as he himself was dying.

    Andrew Malcolm, what say you? This behavior might be post-worthy.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:28 pm

  32. Those people are on par with the Fred Phelps/Westboro Church crowd

    Speak of the devil (pun intended)

    It’s in the Hot Air Headlines

    Comment by aunursa (09c81f) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:44 pm

  33. “Of the above comments, which ones bothered you?”

    None of them I expect left wingers to act like scumbags, so it doesn’t bother me when they act like scumbags. That would like getting bothered by the sun rising in the east.

    And, pointing out that they’re dicks is just the simnple truth, and I try never let myself get bothered by the truth.

    Comment by Dave Surls (345656) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:44 pm

  34. Bringing Ann Coulter into this is asinine. Sure, the right has some whackos, but generally they aren’t really conservatives so much as they are (pathetically) trying to one-up Rush Limbaugh by angering the left with stupid and offensive comments. Remember, Ann Coulter prefers Hillary to Mccain. She’s hardly a rank and file conservative, and her comment about John Edwards was chosen carefully (she calculated the damage to the GOP and the benefit to her and felt ok about the comment).

    SPQR, I can’t put words in Tony’s mouth, but his kindness towards others showed that he had very thick skin. Of course, he got to hear much of the venom the left had for his illness. I’m sure he would prefer an America without such hatred, but I believe that he does see the good in it. The left that hates unity and progress and sees politics as a sport instead of a way to help the USA be as good as it can be… that let needs to be exposed to the voters. This kind of commentary really is so unbelievably pervasive. About Obama, I’ve heard a lot of hate from the Hillary camp, but not much hate from the right (so much as fear of his policies). Ton Snow probably prefers that we at least see the sickness on the left, but I agree with you that he probably was hurt personally by how many people hated him for no reason beyond the (R) by his name.

    I really feel that his job was the front line in the propaganda war. A war we have been losing, because Tony Snow’s predecessor and much of the white house just couldn’t fight the information war as well as Tony could. As corny as it sounds, I liken Tony to a dogfaced veteran who isn’t afraid to be roughed up before the big picture. I wish that Bush could talk like Snow. We’d live in a better world.

    Comment by Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:08 pm

  35. If I really don’t like someone, I wish them a long life. Afterall, they would have to live in a world inhabited by those as in the LAT’s comment section.
    Perhaps it is best that Ob_ma, may his name be praised, IS elected. He would pave the way for the installation of key concepts and governmental agencies – which could then later be coopted by what America needs. Our Glorious future – which shall not be spoken out loud by me – is coming. And those bleating the loudest for Ob_ama today will grease the wheels of the new glorious state of the near future. Thank you for your future unwitting sacrifice….. tools. [hint - it will require no "draft" - and does not reference military service.]

    Comment by Californio (728153) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:19 pm

  36. Of course the editor is offended by your comment…as he more than likely is the one who wrote those nasty comments. Maybe he (or she) even created a few sock puppets—what a great way to make it feel like there’s actually more staff around. Layoffs? What layoffs?

    Comment by PC14 (ec0516) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:33 pm

  37. It’s true what Dennis Prager says:

    We think they are wrong; they hate us.

    Comment by Icy Truth (9033e3) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:12 pm

  38. If you want offensive, try the WBC.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (a757fd) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:37 pm

  39. As for the Ann Coulter stuff, y’all are responding to a comment that’s no longer there. That was bunkerbuster, who has been banned for deliberately wasting all our time with pointless wagers (long story), trying to comment under another name (McLovin). So you can stop talking about Ann Coulter (or keep on doing so if you like, up to you). But when someone is banned and tried to come in under another name, their comments get deleted.

    Comment by Patterico (cb443b) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:57 pm

  40. Enough already with your tiresome “liberal bias” shibboleth. It’s glaringly obvious to anyone who isn’t a knuckle-dragging Faux News viewer that the “mainstream media” is dominated — nay, run wholesale — by the monolithic reich-wing apparatus that has been on the ascendancy for several decades now. Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Savage, Ingraham, Prager, Scarborough, Hewitt, etc. etc. ad nauseam: Wingnut righties rule TV and radio, period. Even the “respectable” journalists — Brokaw, Gibson, Schieffer, etc. — skew heavily to the right. Their ongoing love affair with Teflon John McCain — a failed, flawed candidate if ever there was one — is testament to their ongoing institutional CON-servative bias.

    As for those comments? They’re all offensive and have no place on any website.

    Comment by BigIslandDave (ac8aad) — 7/14/2008 @ 12:05 am

  41. As for Tony Snow, I’m sad about his premature death. Nobody deserves to suffer (including innocent Iraq children). And nobody deserves such hateful vitriol upon their passing.

    That said, the bitter truth is that the often haughty and dismissive Mr. Snow continually and brazenly lied on behalf of the most vile, venal, corrupt, wicked, inept and malign administration in the history of the United States. He will have that burden on his soul — as will Fleischer, McClellan and that vapid blond airhead, Dana Perino.

    All true. Deal with it, reich-wingers.

    Comment by BigIslandDave (ac8aad) — 7/14/2008 @ 12:14 am

  42. I thought he said that those types of comments were offensive?

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Comment by Icy Truth (9033e3) — 7/14/2008 @ 12:40 am

  43. Icy – I think the use of the word reich shows that his ability to recognize what is offensive is limited by his extreme lack of intelligence.

    Comment by Apogee (366e8b) — 7/14/2008 @ 12:43 am

  44. Intelligence?

    Bring it on, mouth-breather.

    (Laughs at the sheer idiocy of the aforementioned posters, and how they really should quit digging while they’re still behind.)

    Hey, how’s that search for WMD in Iraq going?

    Comment by BigIslandDave (ac8aad) — 7/14/2008 @ 12:56 am

  45. #45 – Shut it, retard. Go get some attention somewhere else.

    Comment by Apogee (366e8b) — 7/14/2008 @ 1:01 am

  46. Do you even know the meaning of “apogee”?

    Don’t even think about engaging me in a verbal sparring match. I’ll dissect you so fast, your Kool Aid-besotted head will spin.

    OK, shutting down for now. Sleep tight, my fascist friend.

    “Retard”? (Stifles more laughter.)

    Comment by BigIslandDave (ac8aad) — 7/14/2008 @ 1:14 am

  47. I can resist feeding the trolls. But it’s interesting how they prove the point they are arguing against while boasting their own intellect and ability to dissect our reasoning ‘so fast’, etc etc etc.

    Tony Snow would never have reduced himself to saying the kinds of things the AP said about him, the LA Times permits said about him, and all the crazies swarming in here to be deleted have said about him. He didn’t hate the left that hated him. He performed a valuable service that must be done. Even if you really are silly enough to believe in the ‘reich-wing’ conspiracy of fascists hell bent on war-crimes, the White House does have to answer to our press. It’s an essential function central to our republic of the people. Tony Snow took the job long after Bush’s luster had worn off. he knew it was a very important job, and accepted the huge challenge of a rapib press corps. To criticize him for that… when he was merely (and without any deception) a conduit for the POV of the administration… is just absurd.

    But hate him they do.

    Comment by Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/14/2008 @ 2:31 am

  48. Big Island Dave – Unintentional irony is the best. Thank you.

    Comment by JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/14/2008 @ 4:35 am

  49. BigIslandDave is a hell of a satirist.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 7/14/2008 @ 5:39 am

  50. All true. Deal with it, reich-wingers.

    You say “reich-wingers” as if it’s a bad thing. The word reich is German for “rich.” I don’t consider myself all that rich, nor do I consider my party the “Party of the Rich,” but to the extent that we are the party that at least does not condemn riches, I’ll take the pro-prosperity wing over the povertarian one any day of the week.

    OK, OK, so maybe that’s not the only meaning of the word reich. It’s also the stem for the verb reichen, which means “to reach.” By that definition, you alone represent the “reich” wing, as just about every attempt at a point you’ve made has been a reach.

    Comment by Xrlq (b71926) — 7/14/2008 @ 6:38 am

  51. Too funny – some wildly incoherent trollisms:

    “…to anyone who isn’t a knuckle-dragging Faux News viewer…”

    I think that infantile snark about Fox News is about 10 years old at this point in time. Next he’ll be saying something even more progressive and hilarious, like “where’s the beef?”

    Then the troll issues his fateful challenge:

    “Don’t even think about engaging me in a verbal sparring match…”

    Which is immediately followed by:

    “OK, shutting down for now.”

    Reminds me of someone shouting a challenge while running away, leaving his potential tormentors to watch his flabby behind sagging and jiggling all the way to his parent’s house. Courage.

    Comment by Dmac (416471) — 7/14/2008 @ 8:01 am

  52. “Don’t even think about engaging me in a verbal sparring match…”

    I certainly wouldn’t. The image of some grinning idiot, apparently impressed by all things Hawaiiana, flashing the shaka sign to himself, just doesn’t give off that worthy opponent vibe, brah.

    Comment by PC14 (ec0516) — 7/14/2008 @ 10:11 am

  53. I do not believe the folks on the right make such vile comments about Senator Ted Kennedy.

    Just shows you who children are.

    Comment by McRib (6a16a8) — 7/14/2008 @ 1:01 pm

  54. “I do not believe the folks on the right make such vile comments about Senator Ted Kennedy.”

    I hope Ted Kennedy accidentally eats a booger! There, I said it. Don’t want him to die, but I’d be very pleased if he ate a booger. We on the right are hateful.

    Comment by Kevin (834f0d) — 7/14/2008 @ 3:34 pm

  55. A verbal sparring match? BigIslandDave gives us only the verbal pratfalls, certainly no “match”.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 7/14/2008 @ 3:37 pm

  56. To all those that have made hateful blog posts regarding Tony Snow, please note: When you get to Hell, you want the 3rd door on the left. This is a special room, reserved for people like you. Oh, and by the way, he’s looking down on you now, and he’s laughing his ass off.

    Comment by Jenjis Con (f6893d) — 7/14/2008 @ 4:18 pm

  57. “…the “mainstream media” is dominated — nay, run wholesale — by the monolithic reich-wing apparatus that has been on the ascendancy for several decades now.”

    No doubt that the MSM is essentially a propaganda arm of the Democrats, and also no doubt that the mighty Dems are the closest thing this country has to the Nazis: slavery, segregation, racially motivated lynchings, forced military service (aka conscription/aka involuntary servitude), suppression of dissent by imprisoning those who disagree with/complain about government policy (for which see the acts of Woody Wilson, Truman’s Smith Act prosecutions, etc.), concentration camps for American citizens who are deemed ethnically impure (Roosevelt & executive order 9066), and then of course, there’s the militarism of the Dems (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) as well as numerous other acts they’ve engaged in that bear comparison to the Nazis.

    There’s a big difference in degree between our “liberal” party and the Nazis, but they’re for sure a lot closer than the Republicans are, so I think calling the Dems the Reich-wing is somewhat accurate.

    Don’t think you could really say that the Reich-wing is ascendant though. Their power started slipping quite a bit after their little Vietnam debacle, and now we even have Republican controlled congresses.

    Comment by Dave Surls (fdf680) — 7/14/2008 @ 7:24 pm

  58. [...] — or disapproved, in the case of Patterico himself chiming in to call the cretins over there dicks. Beyond that, it’s no secret per the sheer volume of death-wish crap after a prominent [...]

    Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: O’Reilly rips the LA Times over Tony Snow commenters (371ae1) — 7/14/2008 @ 7:30 pm

  59. “Hey, how’s that search for WMD in Iraq going?”

    It went fine, Dave.

    “We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site.”–Hans Blix, 2/14/03

    Bad, bad Iraqis. You weren’t supposed to have stuff like mustard gas in your hot little Baathist hands…Uncle Sam spank.

    Btw, Dave, since we’re on the subject of leftoids who refuse to see the truth…how is that studiously ignoring the mass graves scattered all over Iraq thing going? You leftists still doing that?

    Comment by Dave Surls (fdf680) — 7/14/2008 @ 7:38 pm

  60. One more comment on what that fella in Hawaii said…

    “That said, the bitter truth is that the often haughty and dismissive Mr. Snow continually and brazenly lied on behalf of the most vile, venal, corrupt, wicked, inept and malign administration in the history of the United States. He will have that burden on his soul — as will Fleischer, McClellan and that vapid blond airhead, Dana Perino.”

    Sounds like a bunch of opinions to me. Don’t see any factual truths there.

    Now, if I said that the liberal Democrats ordered the firebombing of Tokyo, and the atomic bombing of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki, and thereby caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, that would be the truth.

    If I said that doing that made the Roosevelt/Truman administrations the most vile, venal, corrupt, wicked, inept and malign administrations in the history of the United States, that would just be my opinion.

    Comment by Dave Surls (fdf680) — 7/14/2008 @ 7:50 pm

  61. [...] Patterico has good coverage of what’s going on the LA Times. [...]

    Pingback by Bill O’Reilly on Reaction to Tony Snow’s Death « Something should go here, maybe later. (540cd7) — 7/15/2008 @ 12:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4615 secs.