why the predicted results did not arise. If anything, I'd think it'd be more appropriate for me to refute the *outcomes* of the authors' "experiment" or paper rather than the *assumptions* they made in conducting and writing the experiment/paper. I was, again, just trying to come up with a parsimonious* approach toward explaining why predicted results were not found.

**I merely ventured a guess as to why: flawed assumptions.**

Besides, abundant labor/unemployment was not their only assumption - the most egregious assumption to me was that insurgency was a full-time occupation. To me the defining characteristic of an insurgency is that an insurgency (here I'm thinking of the archetypal Viet Cong) works during the day. Finally, that insurgencies are not vertically-integrated enterprises struck me as an assumption worth quarreling with.

I don't think the burden of proof is on me to come up with an explanation as to why the paper's/experiments outcomes failed to match the authors' prediction, through quantitative evidence or multiple case studies, and quite frankly, I'm not sure I could do it, certainly off the top of my head and without research. If that renders my post presumptuous (or the prior ones), I apologize. I simply think/thought it's adequate for me to posit one reason why (once more) results encountered were not the ones anticipated.

Regards,
OC

**
Parsimony: extreme or excessive economy or frugality; stinginess; niggardliness. :-)