Well, since the "fight" is over, i´m going to reply to the original thread.
Saying that if you have a good EV you must call on every situation it´s wrong. When you´re talking about EV you´re applying the term "long term". So a situation when it´s not profitable to apply EV is if you´re in a tournament and you are the one who is all in. In that case there isn´t long term. If you lose, you´re out of the money and that´s all. And even if you win you may not reach the money. The tournaments are very particular. You can apply all what you know about EV just if you have a very big stack (about 4 or 5 times the size of your opponents) and you cannot be the one who is all in.
Saying that, in the situation that chicubs gave you have a comfortable stack that in relation to your opponent stack (i´m talking just about the guy who went all in, who is your only opponent at that hand) is bigger by ~6 times. So this is a situation where you can apply the EV. Applying that, it would be an easy call. But as some of you said, there are some factors in the tournament which makes you doubt about the call. First of all, you don´t want to double up him. But also you don´t want to lose any hand, you don´t want to finish in the bubble, you don´t want to vote today at gamefaqs.com for Sephiroth (come on Link!), etc. At poker you must take some risks if you want to win, specially in a NL tournament. Of course those risks must be "justifiable". You don´t want to call with 63o if it´s going to cost you 3/4 of your stack and you´re sure your opponent has something like high pair. But the risk chicubs mentioned is justifiable because you can clearly apply EV. You´re going to still have a nice stack if you lose.
In relation to being near the bubble, i think it doesn´t affect too much the decision. When you´re near the bubble in my opinion you should loosen up a bit because everyone becomes more tight, and at that point it´s very good to steal some blinds.
p.s: I don´t have too much experience in tournaments and that´s why my opinion here is probably wrong.