I accept your explanation and I apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote originally.

We are all on edge, I think. I know that I am.

When I have been “superior” here, IMO, it has been on topics such as the handling of the Ebola case in Dallas….where I do believe I have a wee little medical edge…. with which you strongly disagreed.

Otherwise, we have simply disagreed. Trouble is, you write the essay, and I cannot contribute an equal amount of effort to my comment thereon. Thus my resonses are pointed. Sometimes I miss the odd detail in my first and only reading of your essay, for which you have rebuked me. No permanent harm done, though, I trust.

Of course I don’t consider Kubler-Ross “crapola,” I meant it was “crapola” in the condescending and pooh-poohing context in which you used it, about this election.

However, I do think there’s one error people make with Kubler-Ross and the stages, which is to consider “acceptance” a final stage a person reaches, or to consider the stages linear. They are not linear except at time. Usually, people go back and forth, back and forth, and/or different feeling co-exist at the same time.

And I’m not being condescending to you, nor have I, in all the years we’ve exchanged thoughts on this blog. You were condescending to me, in my opinion, in a rather superior way, and that actually makes me angry.

I am a very patient person, and I ordinarily don’t show anger here. But sometimes I do, when I think it is deserved. In your case I thought it was deserved. If your actual motivation was kindly and thoughtful, then I misread the condescension. But I don’t think I did misread it, and that’s not my imagination, it’s based on the fact that for years here you have been an ornery person.

I am not a Buddha, so I am not serene about all things all the time. I freely admit I have my intolerances and my irritations with people who refuse to try to understand my thoughts as I explain them.
No one is in my experience serene about all things, just like an incurable, suffering cancer patient is not a blanket of serenity, but has come only to accept the inevitability of personal demise. At my age, with my knowledge, I can now contemplate my mortality with some serenity.

The 2nd line of the Serenity Prayer, “Courage to change the things we can” I used to take as license to work change for or on others. Like my ex-wife. No more: I can change only myself.
As to the “we”, substitute “I”. It still works.

Your charge of condescension is a two-edged sword, which can cut both ways.

I read one cynical theory that Comey pulled this stunt to head off any FBI leaks the week before the election. Who knows?

I was wondering if we would see something explosive come out of Wikileaks but so far it’s mostly dirty laundry and dirty deals between the Hillary campaign and the media. It’s nice to have my suspicions confirmed but no gamechangers so far unless Wikileaks is going to play it right down to the wire.

Your remark about acceptance did not appear to come from some sort of loving, Christian place. It fairly dripped with condescension, particularly that “we.”

For starters, acceptance doesn’t occur before an event has even transpired; it takes time. The election is tomorrow, I would remind you, and not a single day of either a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump candidacy has yet transpired.

Second: no, I’m not serene. Plus, nothing about any remark of yours here indicates any sort of serenity on your part, so don’t be so condescending. In fact, in all the years you’ve commented here, you have been rather consistently snarky and angry, critical and bile-filled, a person who shows not a spark of serenity in himself. So there’s no reason to imagine your previous remarks in this thread came from any sort of loving Christian forbearance or the Serenity Prayer. That has not been your way, as a commenter here.

Now, perhaps in real life, rather than blog life, you are a master of serenity and acceptance. If so, my hat is off to you, although I somehow very much doubt it. However, remember that part of the Serenity Prayer (which you did not specifically cite in your initial comment) is to only accept those things you cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference, as well as fighting those things you can change rather than accepting them. It’s a prayer, as well, not something usually achieved by mere mortals in the thick of things (tomorrow’s voting being “the thick of things”).

You and I have tussled many many times on this blog, and I have allowed you to keep commenting here because there’s something I value about you. I’ve called you curmudgeonly before, but you are always very much yourself, and always have provocative and interesting things to say. But serenity? No, most emphatically not part of your blog commenting persona. Snark and nastiness? Very very much so.

AND, I’m talking about folks I know who are original trump, reluctant trump, original trump but changed, never trump, reluctant clinton, and clinton is a republican.

NOBODY is sanguine nor serene about this election.

I don’t know what will pass before us these next few months, but I DO expect some major reverberations.

I wonder if many might then come to the conclusion that perhaps they’ve been had by the left (and opportunists on the right)…
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428?utm_content=bufferf7995&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nate Silver says that those places claiming 98% odds favorite to clinton are foolish – for similar reasons – number of undecideds is high.

Still, clinton loses largely if they cannot GOTV. She doesn’t need obama levels, but, if competent, should be able to beat trump’s weaker GOTV operation (who doesn’t have a united GOP).