In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: At least these scholars are thinking for themselves, not something that is encouraged much in our schools - but should be. Issues such as this should be up for debate in every school in the country not give rise to disciplinary hearings. Nevertheless it is a mystery firstly why the EFF find it necessary to resort to threats of violence in a matter that involves school children and secondly why anyone would report the comments of Kevin Pietersen who time and again has shown himself to be nothing but a disruptive twat who is unable to exercise any rational judgment before opening his trap.

Output: Non-threat


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Yay for the Brits!  But...does this mean bishops, school boards and administrators will not demand wretched contracts for teachers and other staff that are carefully worded to exclude LGBT teachers, such as are in effect in the US?  If yes, double-yay for the Brits; if not, I see yet another layer of hypocrisy.

Output: Non-threat


Input: Consider Input: Comment: I agree we need to wipe out the radical Islamists. Problem is, we were helping radical Islamists in an effort to topple Assad. We need first of all to come clean about what is our foreign policy. We need to stop the hypocrisy. We need to stop supporting terrorists in any way shape or form; we need to support govts. that are fighting Islamism; we need to stop sending arms to regimes that support Islsmist terrorism (Saudi Arabia, for example). If we just clean up our act we can get wholly behind the job of wiping out the Islamists. But that will entail certain alliances will have to change (Saudi Arabia, for example).


Output: Threat