In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: insult and non-insult. Insult is any lanugage or act that is disrespectful or scornfully abusive.

Q: Comment: Yes, their friend. Who actively was involved in setting up their arrests. For the reward money. Which makes her no different than the kids who knew and did nothing for weeks. Worse in the mind of their circle of "Friends" because she "Ratted" for money.

I was attempting to articulate Gin's mother, grandmother seems like involved, caring, respectful women. They are trying desperately to guide Gin into a positive future.

This girl though, she is playing stupid games. She certainly is going to win all the stupid prizes too.

A: Insult
****
Q: Comment: Ed you hit it out of the park !

A: Non-insult
****
Q: Comment: One can take the Church too seriously (horrors) and overlook the sins of the institution as if they didn't matter because the official teaching of the Church says otherwise. One finds this disingenuous. The Church teaches by example and if her example is so fraught with error one may look askance at claims that her teaching authority, be it honorable, is in any way infallible. 
     For example: if life is sacred from conception to natural death, what of the Buddhists killed by Diem, a professed Catholic in Vietnam, whose oppressive actions led to the self-immolation of Buddhist monks? Did other than some lay Catholics protest? Where was the censure due his actions from the clergy, from the Vatican? 
    I cannot see any rational excuse for believing in an infallible teaching authority, where one may, in good conscience hold sacred both oral, written and spiritual traditions in Christianity and Catholicism without the intellectual sin of idolatry.

A:
Non-insult
****