If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Weird one this isn't it? Is there a catch I'm missing?
Does it need rewording slightly? If it isn't in a state of disrepair then don't mend it. If it isn't damaged then don't remedy it. Still doesn't make sense.
Is it some kind of thought experiment I wonder. A 'Schrödinger's cat' of cliches perhaps. Where something is broken and not broken at the same time.
But the fact it isn't broken doesn't mean that we can't do something else to it. Clean it, polish it, attach something to it - I suppose there's nothing to say that we couldn't break it in order to fix it and restore it to a state of not being broken or need fixing again.
And that's before we even get onto what 'it' might be.
All in all, very confusing.
Conclusion: Look, either tell me what 'it' is and what needs doing to it or just keep quiet about it.
