Aidy wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:lr8235dgf1qlnejln5jnv0ettcliv3plgm@4ax.com...
>> If you like, yes.  And if you *remove* the path of least resistance,
>> the *same* current will continue to flow in the other paths. The
>> current through those paths will *not* increase.  And the *total*
>> current will decrease by exactly the amount that used to flow in the
>> removed path of least resistance.
>
> So I didn't use a PhD worded explanation of how electricity works.

It wasn't the wording that was the problem. You were completely wrong 
about how electricity works. If you think the wording was the only 
problem, you still don't understand how electricity works. As I keep 
saying, get a GCSE text book and have a read but drop it on here. It 
was a flawed analogy that showed the opposite of what you were trying to show.

>Does 
> that actually change how criminals work?  No.  Why are you so focussed on 
> minor points of analogies all the time?  Is it because your fundamental 
> point can't be argued so you have to be constantly derailing the point?  No 
> analogy is ever 100% accurate and concentrating on the analogy instead of 
> the point is just yet one more of your many logical fallacies. 

You brought up the analogy to claim that if you removed one easy path 
of criminality (drugs) then total crime wouldn't reduce. The analogy was 
wrong so people pointed that out to you. I believe you're also wrong about
total crime as well. I beleive it is very much like how an electric circuit 
works - if you remove an easy path, less total current flows. My 
justification for this is that when they removed prohibition in the US, 
bootleggers continued to sell alcohol, except legally and total crime 
dropped.

Over to you. Can we forget about the electricity?

Aidy wrote:
>> Can we forget about the electricity?
>
> You obviously can't because it's all you can talk about.

Nice work snipping the bit where I try to drag it back on topic.

Bored of you now.