In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Q: Comment: Really?

No question, the Chinese masterfully figure out how to copy and build cheaper. Rarely, if ever, better.

As for vested interests in fossil fuels, that is a complete red herring. In the US, fossil fuels are not revered, nor are they feared. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk do not demand the neutering of Big Oil - he is convinced that he will beat them at their own game. In zero sum Canada, in order for one industry to prosper, another must be choked off by government.

The US understands that when a fuel source is found that beats oil and gas in terms of price, portability and energy density, then it is hasta la vista Big Oil. Until then however, all's fair.

Unlike in Canada where we persist in the fiction of thinking we are eco-laggards in  a world which is rapidly weaning itself off of oil, despite the fact of increasing, not decreasing global demand.

Our nanny state will see us getting poorer, with a few pats on the head from the eco-screamers to keep us warm.

A: Non-toxic
****
Q: Comment: The R-G is on a roll!  Three Opinion headlines, three missing editorials!

Is someone just learning how to cut and paste?

A: Non-toxic
****
Q: Comment: Having read multiple posts by you both here and on Disquus where you have either advocated or threatened violence against those who disagree with one of your pet beliefs, your assertion of 'humor' is not credible.

As far as 'humor' and threats or desires for injury or death to any Presidential political candidate are concerned, the US Secret Service, (who is charged under Federal law with investigating and prosecuting that sort of thing), is  noted for its total lack of a sense of humor.

A:
Non-toxic
****