Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: You write like you're the one that wrote Lynn Gattis' talking point about doing away with the senior citizens, Gay.  How much did you get paid for that script?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Guestsquared:  It's really too bad you can't manage to discuss an issue without inserting one or more personal insults.  Again, may I suggest disagreeing with you on this issue or any other does make a person, ipso facto, "ill-informed." I could reply with a like comment and we could waste time and energy exchanging insults.  I'm not interested in doing that. 

 We know, although you and the others who support this law will never acknowledge it,  that it was specifically written to "discourage" panhandling by punishing anyone who donats to panhandlers from a car.   This ban, of course, eliminates the primary source of contributions to panhandlers. It's designed to give Springfield panhandlers the "bum's rush", while hopefully passing the test of its Constitutionality.  It may be supported by the Courts, it may not be.  As I've repeatedly said, that is the Courts' responsibility.  We'll likely get to see how it "plays out."
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Anecdotal evidence is not a strong argument. That a few people do well without degrees does not change the fact that the vast majority of dropouts face dismal employment prospects. And besides, nobody is saying the students are stupid. The article and most comments are saying the schools in combination, probably, with many of the parents, and society, are failing the students, because Oregon ranks near the bottom at high school graduation rates and college preparedness. Presumably, the states and nations that are doing better are doing better not because of any genetic difference in their young people, but because of a different set of academic values and standards.
[EX A]:
Yes