Why the ordering of the quantifiers matters here? $\newcommand{\fool}{\operatorname{fool}}$I want to transfer the statement 

You can fool all the people some of the time

into predicate logic.
Now I am using fool(X,T) to mean that I fool person X at time T.
Now I know that the correct form is $\exists T\  \forall X\  \fool(X,T)$.
But I want to understand why is it not correct if we change the ordering of the quantifiers to $\forall X\ \exists T\ \fool(X,T)$.
The first one is saying there exists a time that I can fool all people right ?
Ans the second one is saying for all the people out there, There exists a time that I can fool you , right ?
What is the difference ??
What makes the first once correct but not the second.

To expand on AJ stas's comment,   the first formulation,  $\exists T \forall X fool(X,T)$,  first you assert the existence of (at least one) single Time, T.   Then you say that for EVERY person X,   $fool(X,T)$, i.e, every single person can be fooled at that exact time.
When you reverse the quantifiers,  $\forall X \exists T fool(X,T)$,  you are asserting that for every single person,  there exists (at least one) time (that depends on that person!)  for which that person can be fooled.  So,   I might be fooled today and you might be fooled tomorrow.  
In the first example,  there's a time, like 3:17PM,  where every person in the world can be fooled at once.
I'm pretty sure that the second version more accurately states the colloquial meaning of the phrase.
