Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

The focus on the health consequences and microbiology of the five-second rule for eating food that has fallen to the floor may be missing the reason such a rule arose in the first place. I doubt that many people believe that consuming food that lingers on the floor for four seconds is O.K. but that at six seconds it’s not.

It seems far more likely that by invoking this apparently arbitrary rule in the presence of others, the person retrieving the food is providing social cover for what might otherwise be viewed as barbarous behavior.

JOHN WALDMAN

Sea Cliff, N.Y.

The writer is a professor of biology at Queens College.

Note from KBJ: Wait. The five-second rule is a joke, right?

Here.

Scott Adams is experiencing the Left.

Here.

I took this picture on campus the other day. Click to enlarge.

Here.

Here.

Question: Why is the Left going crazy about Donald Trump's refusal to say that he will accept the outcome of the 2016 presidential election?

Answer: The Left recalls its efforts to delegitimize the presidency of George W. Bush. From the moment the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Bush v. Gore (2000), the Left refused to accept him as its president. For eight years, the Left did everything possible to mock, vilify, and obstruct him. The worst fear of the Left is that the same thing will happen to Hillary Clinton. Leftists want her to advance the progressive agenda, and they know that this will require collaboration from Republicans. If Trump and his followers do to her what the Left did to Bush, she will accomplish only a fraction of what they want accomplished. So they vilify Trump, hoping thereby to deter him (and his followers) from delegitimizing Clinton the way they delegitimized Bush.

New York Dolls (1973).

To the Editor:

The campaign is drawing to a close, and I wish that The Times’s coverage had been more objective. There was often little difference between news and editorial content, and a strong anti-Republican slant.

Look at your news analysis on the final debate (“Interrupting, Mocking and Taunting, Clinton Turns the Tormentor,” front page, Oct. 20). Hillary Clinton is praised for outmaneuvering Mr. Trump by adopting some of the abrasive behaviors he has shown, while the calmer Mr. Trump is mocked as “defanged.”

I will hide under my bed if Mr. Trump wins, but The Times’s dislike of him permeates news articles and throws the paper’s ability to provide truthful reporting into doubt. Mr. Trump is an extreme example, but coverage of other Republicans has followed suit. Meanwhile, the paper has tap-danced around Mrs. Clinton’s email issue.

Reporting needs to be accurate, even when showing shortcomings of a public figure. But an obvious slant toward one party doesn’t help readers, who must rely on objective reporting to make good decisions.

ANGELA CAMACK

Jackson, N.J.

Note from KBJ: Duh.