Originally posted by DonsAdvisor:
It depends on what the meaning of the word "IT" is. Specifically, it depends on whether the first "IT" refers to the same thing as the second "IT." If the worth or usefulness of (2nd) IT ALL exceeds that of (1st)IT ALL, then it may make sense to risk IT ALL. It depends on how risky the situation for IT ALL is. However, just because someone has a job and gets laid, it doesn't mean one ought not to risk IT ALL for IT ALL (better job, better lay). Even if one is satified with IT ALL, there is no guarantee that one will always have IT ALL. Economies and biologies both eventually lag. But at least economies bounce back. II all depends on IT.
Brilliant DA, so what you are saying we have to qualitatively or quantitatively evaluate IT ALL before we either ignore the phrase or follow its course of action...like some sort of personal Cost Benefit Analysis of IT ALL. Thus it depends how longstanding and/or wonderful an individual's IT ALL is. Everyone's IT ALL factor will vary so the stupidity of the phrase varies.
