Having overcome all responses to "Why not?" it remains relevant to proceed to answering "Why?"

A rather wide-ranging, and relatively obscure, comment, but just in case my interpretation is correct:

Some people I know from out of town were coming into last night's show. One of them requested a song I didn't have, but could purchase for download. And I figure if I update everything for one song, I might as well do it for 10, and so acquired some other songs that had been requested, as well as some that I figured would be good to have anyway.

heh, as of this morning I get to answer my own question.
on facebook I have a friend request from Angel.

Would that be Angel beginning with an "L"?

If so, I just got a very large argument as to why I shouldn't join Facebook...

One of her more innocuous personalities, but still.

well,
under the assumption that the fb controls work in the way they suggest,
and the assumption that there is only one such personality on fb,
then it would be possible to use this now-known identity as a means of applying a pre-emptive block immediately upon colonizing fb.

But these are just responses to "why not?"
They do not begin to approach answers to "why?"

As far as I know, I am giving answers to "why."

But then the difference between "why" and "why not" is simply which perspective you happen to be using at the time. The glass is, in fact, both half-empty and half-full.

Or completely full of molecules.

Or topologically equivalent to a sphere, and therefore cannot be "full" of anything.