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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: They're living it over in Santa Clara, making converts, and making intentional disciples out of nominal cradle-Catholics.  Right now, today, not in some bygone era.  

And the situation was similar across the bay from there at St. Edward's in Newark before a real clericalist character (who hates the rail...) was made pastor in 2015.  (Is 2015 a bygone era?)  The building was a Protestant-style prayer barn but with a sanctuary rail and some improvements, the community was active, people were getting on fire for the faith, and nobody in his right mind thought of that rail being about the personal elevation of the priest over the laity.

OLOP isn't my parish (and by choice, since it's closer than where I go) but I can't say they're not doing some things right.

Of course one could always mention Cantius as another example.  And for all practical purposes that parish community dates to the Bernardin era in Chicago.

Output: Non-toxic


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Hanson is just another hater, here writing about a subject - the law - of which he knows nothing.  It's idiotic.

Output: Toxic


Input: Consider Input: Comment: What the media won't tell you is that two of the guys were supported by the UK government as anti Ghaddaffi terrorists in Libya.


Output: Non-toxic