Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: I would agree if we were talking about ancient history, but we're not. The trust issue is current and severe, and the past decisions are recent (and some are current). You and your colleagues may not feel mistrust, but it's pretty clear that a large percentage of the people feel differently.

For the record, I am not opposed to expanding the URD. I'm pretty much on the fence on the issue. I am, however, powerfully concerned that we don't have a city government that can be trusted. If the city decides to break its promise and trust with the people, that is only for the worse for everybody involved, including downtown businesses. It will also increase the opposition to any future city plans.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: What the hell is wrong with people! Sick fucks! These are children not animals!
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: If your well-being or your leashed dog's well-being is being feared for, you have a right to defend yourself against unleashed dogs. Maybe after this happens a bunch stupid owners will learn that all dogs should be leashed unless in an approved off-leash area (University Lake). Until then: carry a firearm, walk with trekking poles or carry bear spray.  In other words: DEFEND YOURSELF.
[EX A]:
Yes