You must have some strange new definition of "good" and "reason" with which I was not previously aware. :) "Because it makes wispfox giggle" sounds pretty good to me! I'll concede that there are some values of "things" where you probably should need a better reason, though.
If the reason really _Was_ solely to make me giggle, sure. But when that is used as a reason after the fact, and that was not the actual reason (in most cases, the actual reason is unknown), it's not a valid reason. Although it _is_ funny. :)
if it were ever true that that statement was accurate - and that really _was_ why something was done - I'd agree. But generally, they are used as explanations after the fact, and were not actually the original reason. :)
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
[It occurs to me, though, that ""because it makes wispfox giggle" and "because it makes you ask questions" are both the kind of phrases that are useful enough to merit unique one-or two-syllable shorthand.]
If that is the true reason, ok. But if - as is usually the case - those are reasons used when the actual reason is either unknown or not being shared, they are not valid reasons. Even if they are funny. :)
If they really _are_ the reasons that things were done, sure. But usually these reasons are claimed when the actual reason is either unknown or not being shared, in which case they are not valid reasons, even if funny ones. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-22 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-22 10:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 02:59 pm (UTC)If the reason really _Was_ solely to make me giggle, sure. But when that is used as a reason after the fact, and that was not the actual reason (in most cases, the actual reason is unknown), it's not a valid reason. Although it _is_ funny. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-22 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-22 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 02:57 pm (UTC)So, in effect, they are no more useful than 'because'.
Except that they do at least amuse me when used as reasons.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 02:58 pm (UTC)if it were ever true that that statement was accurate - and that really _was_ why something was done - I'd agree. But generally, they are used as explanations after the fact, and were not actually the original reason. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 03:40 am (UTC)[It occurs to me, though, that ""because it makes
no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 03:00 pm (UTC)If that is the true reason, ok. But if - as is usually the case - those are reasons used when the actual reason is either unknown or not being shared, they are not valid reasons. Even if they are funny. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 11:19 am (UTC)Making you giggle is definitely a good reason for things.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 03:01 pm (UTC)And lo, I was very much with the not clear!
If they really _are_ the reasons that things were done, sure. But usually these reasons are claimed when the actual reason is either unknown or not being shared, in which case they are not valid reasons, even if funny ones. :)