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.

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: Vancouver was thinking it was a good idea to pass a law mandating snow tires-  but only if there was snow on the ground? 

How on earth was that law going to be enforced? Who was going to enforce it? How were people going to comply? Check the weather then break out the jack?

Two questions arise in my mind- 

1- Did the author completely miss the actual wording of the proposed law? Because surely a law like that could not have actually been proposed, right? 

2- If the author's research was accurate, it beggars the question: How do people that stupid actually get elected?
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: The way that the multiplier effect ratchets through the economy is the real job killer.  But starving the poor is fun.  Lets watch Justin do it.
[EX A]:
Threat