Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: Yep. As I thought, you can't quite get your facts right.

And, your attempt to finesse the "boundaries" issue doesn't fool anyone. I've posted the full comments below.

What a funny concept! "Intellectual bullying." Is the definition: "using superior [intellectual] strength or influence to intimidate someone who is [intellectually] weaker, typically to force him or her to do what one wants."?

Well, let's see -- the council vote was 8-0 to use the W. 6th/7th Aves. alignment, if I recall. Must have been a result of "intellectual bullying."

For folks who don't know. LTD got caught with its pants down on the facts -- _most specifically the superior service benefits of running on W. 6th and 7th Aves._

Hopefully, you no longer have any role in transit planning because you haven't got a clue.
 
-- Paul
Example Output: No

Example Input: How about 'Arrogant"?  "A law unto himself"?  "A vigilante in uniform"?  "Unable to control his emotions"?  "Egotistic"?  

All of those work for me.
Example Output: No

Example Input: The point is that the voters do not elect the president. It is the Democratic establishment, rich Democrats, delegates who don't vote for the candidate who garnered the most votes, and, finally, super delegates who are rogues who can vote any way they want to regardless of the voter's will. This has to stop and the electoral college should be demolished as well. A popular vote for the president would be a good fix.
Example Output:
Yes