A pet peeve: People who write sentences in the following form: [Subject] [does not, did not, is not, etc.] [some action or quality] because of [X].

That probably makes no sense whatsoever, so here's an example (meant to be surrealistic): "Jeffrey is not invisible because he is Samoan." Another example: "Jack does not love Jenny because she is blond."

What irks me about these types of sentences is their ambiguity. Jeffrey is not invisible because he is Samoan -- he's invisible because he's Hawaiian. Or, Jeffrey is not invisible because he is Samoan -- and everyone knows that Samoans are always visible. Jack does not love Jenny because she is blond -- he loves her because she plays the harp. Or, Jack does not love Jenny because she is a blond -- whereas if she were a redhead, sparks would fly.

In other words, you never know whether the sentence means that the person really isn't the something and the "because" is meant to explain why, or whether the person IS the something and the "not" and the "because" are meant to imply an alternative explanation for the something.

I'd better quit while I'm ahead.