Is truth worthless? Because there is great inconvenience in having seat belts in certain vehicles of transportation, it does not follow it is worthless. Worth stems not from convenience and worthless, in turn, does not originate from inconvenience. The logic of worthless is, therefore, in this context, illogical, and is itself worthless as a rebuttal.

What was pointed out was that the fatal consequences of the school bus were also subject (no exception) to buses. The consequences per se are not 'worthless' just because there is no apparent solution at present to prevent death or injury. A vehicle travelling at 30kmh to 35kmh is a potential death trap and this is a reason why school buses must have seat belts. The same law of movement applies to a bus, irrespective of inconvenience or any other factor. There is no exemption or immunity. Given this immutable law of nature governing a moving vehicle, how can someone who points out that the same injury or death can result from a bus, as from a school bus, be worthless?

Would the 'worthless' proponents not sling accusations (which is easy) but come out with a complete logically structured case to rebut what was said, and that is a bus, by the law of movement (velocity), carries the same danger of injury or death? I look forward to seeing in print a full letter, based on logic and on science, rebutting the law which Mr Au predicated his observations on and why the same law makes no exception for a bus. No university or school teaches there is an exception, from the research of scientists. To prove what Mr Au said was worthless, the refutation must give acknowledged scientific research to the contrary.

Words cannot be thrown about without backing. To substantiate the accusation of worthless, the accuser must first show that Mr Au's predication on the law of movement is a lie and that the law per se does not exist. Can the accuser do this?

Nelson Quah