Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: But the thing is...she couldn't have said anything else. If you are a musher and you say anything bad about the Iditarod, they can ban you. It's the new gag order on mushers, which I think is incredibly newsworthy. She couldn't say that she wasn't "satisfied with how the ITC was handling it," in fact she was specifically obligated to say that she WAS satisfied, because she's not allowed to say anything bad. Medred decided that this wasn't OK and went ahead with the story, a decision I think was right. 

I guess he could have left her name out of it, but perhaps the info was already out there and telling the story with no name attached would have been weird.

A: No
****
Q: George get over yourself....Welcome to the "new" Alaska that you helped to create. And if you think you will get one once of reliable help from Dunleavey...guess again. We all know you want to go to Juneau as a state rep to help "straighten" us all out....Bunk...you are just more of the same as your sainted "buddy" Father "Mikey" maybe you can jam thru funding for Parochial Schools....

A: Yes
****
Q: I had similar thoughts back when the Republicans first started splitting hairs and playing word games with "endorse" and "support". Do they really not understand that they are one and the same? Pretty crazy for national politicians. Sounds a lot like the local political rhetoric from our very own legislative majority. (Meyers' "deer in the headlights" look and subsequent comments about the $100.00 lobbyist dinner, as an example)

A:
No
****