no difference

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Sep 25, 2010 at 21:00

Abdellah, sounding slightly confused, writing from the Infidel land of Germany , says:

"...can someone explain me why changing this thing to have the opposite of the meaning? "

Perhaps you should take a few more English lessons

The original quote given was:

"........They are known to have been corrupted, so there is no problem disdaining them.)..."

and Mr. Abdellah pleads:

what is wrote exactly is : "but what we know that is changed and not contain a sacred name, there is no problem to offend it - ...can someone explain me why changing this thing to have the opposite of the meaning? ""

The sentences mean essentially the same thing - the first is not the opposite of the second. To corrupt something means to change from its original condition - with the sense that the end product is wose than the original.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".