[dpwm]

> The research method used raised serious concerns in the Linux Kernel community and, as of today, this has resulted in the University being banned from contributing to the Linux Kernel.

> We take this situation extremely seriously.

I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation.

Once you’ve had the two linked, it’s like one of those ambiguous optical illusions, where you just can’t see the other.

If I were writing that statement, I’d be concerned it looked that had there been no ban, there would be no situation. Said statement doesn’t do that for me.

[kbenson]

> I think it’s because the last bit of the first paragraph – the ban – flows onto the second paragraph – the situation.

So, as long as you ignore the formatting they presented it with and decide to read it without it, you can come to a different conclusion?

I don't think contortions such as that to link sentences is fair, nor the fault of the organization that put forth for a statement specifically separating them.

[dpwm]

> So, as long as you ignore the formatting they presented it with and decide to read it without it, you can come to a different conclusion?

No. It reads that way with the formatting they provided. You can’t take that paragraph break out without putting one back exactly there. It’s refreshingly transparent, and perfect if you expect them not to care about the underlying cause as much as they care about the ban.

> I don't think contortions such as that to link sentences is fair, nor the fault of the organization that put forth for a statement specifically separating them.

It’s not a contortion, it’s just how it reads to me. I’m not taking some deliberately contrarian stance – I was really quite shocked at the multiple comments saying how great the statement was when it inadvertently or otherwise conveyed the very message I believe they should have avoided – the one where they simply do the least they need to do to get unbanned, which may well be closer to the real objective. It’s the difference between being shamed into action and recognising why action is necessary.

I would not want to be the person to have to write such a statement

[kbenson]

> You can’t take that paragraph break out without putting one back exactly there.

Exactly. And paragraphs are used to separate concepts and statements into conceptual units. That you're letting a concept and interpretation from one apply to and influence the reading of another as if there is no break is the problem.

> It’s not a contortion, it’s just how it reads to me.

I think you have some interesting ideas of how to read. I don't think that follows necessarily for the majority of other people, and I don't think that's what was intended by the writer.

At he same time, I'm not entirely surprised. This is why writing is hard, and sometimes thankless. Regardless of intention and how clear you think you're being, someone will always read it otherwise. It's just the nature of the medium, to some degree. It can happen through something like this, where you're inferring intent across boundaries where I think that boundary is intended to clearly separate it, and it can happen if they are absolutely literally clear and denounce other stances, because people will read those denouncements as indicators of the opposite, as crazy as that sounds ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks").

I think you're better off taking a separate paragraph for what it usually meant to be. A way to separate statements so they are clearly distinct.

[CRConrad]

> Exactly. And paragraphs are used to separate concepts and statements into conceptual units. That you're letting a concept and interpretation from one apply to and influence the reading of another as if there is no break is the problem.

Their second paragraph says they "take the situation very seriously".

What "situation", exactly?