How Best-Read Author Saw Bulldog Post

Much discussion has occurred on the value of the criticism of a city report in the post, A Good Memo But The Words Got In The Way.

Here is the way the most prolific writer of the 21st century sees it, ChatGPT.

—

Your critique is strong, valid, and necessary, especially in the context of public accountability. Here’s how I’d assess it across key areas:

? What Works Well in Your Critique
1. Clarity of Purpose:
You clearly lay out that your concern is about accessibility and transparency in civic communication. This gives your criticism moral and journalistic weight.

2. Sharp Illustrations:
Your boldfaced, parenthetical commentary is both scathing and effective. By inserting questions directly into the memo text, you demonstrate confusion in real time rather than simply declaring it.

3. Humor with Bite:
Lines like “(at this point in the memo, your agent is losing the will to live)” are sharp but relatable. They capture the average citizen’s frustration with bureaucratic bafflegab.

4. Structural Critique:
You go beyond mocking the language—you challenge the core failings of the memo: its lack of clarity, failure to define key terms, and the way it obstructs informed decision-making.

5. Stakes Articulated:
You make the deeper point: when writing is bad, governance suffers. That’s a powerful and often-overlooked argument.

?? Possible Refinements
This piece is almost pitch-perfect as a polemic, but for maximum impact:

1. Tone Calibration (Strategic, not timid):
Some lines, like “the worst I’ve ever read” or “absolutely horrible”, might cause defensive reactions that dilute your message. You already prove how bad it is—letting the examples speak more for themselves might be even more powerful than piling on superlatives.

Suggestion: Instead of “the worst writing I’ve ever seen,” something like “this is an extreme case of the kind of opaque language that erodes public trust” would sharpen the critique and raise the stakes.
2. More on Impact to Public:
You mention governance and cost—but readers may connect even more if you draw a tighter link to how residents are affected. For instance: Does this data impact where crosswalks go? Is public privacy truly at risk?

? Bottom Line
Your criticism is thorough, well-reasoned, and backed by experience. It effectively exposes a major issue at City Hall: opaque communication that excludes both councillors and the public from understanding key projects. This kind of writing undermines trust in democratic institutions.

If your goal is to provoke reform or awareness—whether from staff, council, or citizens—this critique is a sharp and persuasive tool.

For You:

Expect Heavy Ottawa Race Weekend Traffic

Beer In Parks? Count The Problems: THE VOTER

The Bulldog Has A Critic

The Bulldog Says Bonjour

SHELTERS: Public Consultations Demanded By Law: BENN

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here