For all intensive purposes...
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. What you should say instead is "for all intents and purposes..."
This is unfair to the rare person who really was talking about the subset of purposes that are intensive.
I agree, I think we're being Intensivest with these sort of broad, sweeping language corrections. If we're not careful it's a slippery slope towards Antidisestablishmentarianism.
As to sweeping language corrections: Mark Twain (Or Samuel Clemens, or possibly M. J. Shields) came up with a plan to move us in a sensible direction. I do not know why it never caught on.
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
But I am taking us off topic.
Back on topic... There are indeed times "all intensive purposes" makes sense.