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

[EX Q]: WE--GOT FRESH-powder snow here and need to make myself---eskimo snow-goggles---hardly anymore darkness at night also---that time of year !!!!
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Nobody faults anyone for protecting their children. Its when they go to unnecessary, outrageous extents to do so. He created MORE danger to his children by shooting a dog in its own yard; he is damn lucky the dog owner didn't come out shooting back, which he would have been in the right to do. Luckily for all the dog owner was more level headed.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: When you were a child, and there were half as many people around...And now we're recycling stuff and that's bad because there's a financial incentive and we're somehow stupid for recycling...and that has a tie-in to an old pick-up you had, which "they" told you you couldn't put a new engine in...

Answer you?  I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here:  Don't you think recycling is a little better than digging it up (or chopping it down) and throwing it in a landfill?  Yes, it takes effort, equipment, and infrastructure---I hope we as a  society are able to engage in a science-and-evidence-based discussion over whether the net result is really worth it.  

I've read studies that indicate we could possibly phase out fossil fuels in a decade:  I can see that as a possible motive for oil producers to flood the market and drive the price of their product down, and try to shift this discussion to the background for as long as possible, with the "help" of people like Sarah and you.
[EX A]:
No