In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

[Q]: Comment: Prorogue
Harper proroguing Parliament was to stop an UNDEMOCRATIC attempt by the sore losers to form a Coalition to steal the election from the winning Conservatives
.
it was pathetic watching such "democrats" as Chretien and Ed Broadbent trotting up Parliament Hill with that intention
.
Proroguing by Harper is a tool in the Rule Book, so it is not undemocratic at all
[A]: Non-obscene


[Q]: Comment: After reading this crap, can't wait until election time!
[A]: Obscene


[Q]: Comment: Keep it coming, James!!

In this copy/paste, James attempts his unsubstantiated personal attack and the "industrial toxic waste" nonsense.  He attempts to claok his libelous claims in such verbiage as "it has been said that", "it is uncertain whether",  followed by his exit to sign on to other comment sections to begin posring his verbatim false claims and misinformation all over again.  

With the brazen dishonesty demonstrated by James here, and typical of antifluoridationists, is there any question as to the difficulty the general public has in making an informed decision on fluoridation?

When antifluoridationists learn to respect the truth, and develop the integrity to cease intentionally seeking to mislead the public, honest public discussions designed to allow the public to make an informed decision on fluoridation  may be possible.  Until then, they are not.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
[A]:
Non-obscene