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: The University, for whatever, reason decided to terminate Mr. Walls' contract.  It was an amazingly "one-sided" document..ostensibly written for four years....but, with a "without cause" clause which allowed the University to terminate it with only one month's notice.  The administration exercised that legal right and terminated Mr. Walls with no stated "cause".....that was perfectly legal...however "unfair" it might seem.  On the other hand, perhaps they did have "cause" but chose to "take the easy way out" and not go through the hassle of proving any justification for his termination.  They experienced considerable "blowback" because of their actions and, it seems, decided to "buy off" Mr. Walls for $90K...."here that this damn money and go away!"  The whole fiasco reflects very badly on the administration...these guys make too much money to be so horribly incompetent...Gary Crum

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: Fat ass, go eat another do-nut.

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: It's not going to be fixed.  Watson simply can't pass block and his backup may be the worst RT in this history of the NFL. Unfortunately, Siemian will continue making boneheaded plays and ruin having this great defense.  Next year, if Elway isn't too busy stroking the Trump train and right-wing political issues, maybe we can find us some upgrades on the line and QB.

A:
Non-obscene
****