I guess I'm not quite understanding that assertion that, "all means all."
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged gives 13 basic definitions for the English word, "all" plus another 20 prepositional/adverbial constructs, for a total of 33 different definitions.
Johnston divides the use of the Greek word, πᾶς in the NT into two broad categories, which he calls the, "summative" and the, "distributive." The former would be the entire item or set of items taken as a whole, while the latter would be a set of items taken as individuals. He then develops the thesis that usage is based on a combination of syntactical-semantic and exegetical-contextual elements, which strikes me as a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than a singular definition.
Don't misunderstand. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the NWT does not, in your opinion, accurately convey the writer's overall message. There's nothing wrong in believing that other translations do a much better job in this regard. Most xjw's do..
What's wrong is the idea that the JW's have "changed the verses to alter the meaning." This assumes there is only one possible way the text can be understood, which is simply not true.