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

Q: Guestsquared:  It's really too bad you can't manage to discuss an issue without inserting one or more personal insults.  Again, may I suggest disagreeing with you on this issue or any other does make a person, ipso facto, "ill-informed." I could reply with a like comment and we could waste time and energy exchanging insults.  I'm not interested in doing that. 

 We know, although you and the others who support this law will never acknowledge it,  that it was specifically written to "discourage" panhandling by punishing anyone who donats to panhandlers from a car.   This ban, of course, eliminates the primary source of contributions to panhandlers. It's designed to give Springfield panhandlers the "bum's rush", while hopefully passing the test of its Constitutionality.  It may be supported by the Courts, it may not be.  As I've repeatedly said, that is the Courts' responsibility.  We'll likely get to see how it "plays out."

A: Yes
****
Q: Xavier: It's interesting that some folks (including, it seems, you) are blaming Mr. Clark's loss on his running a lackluster campaign.  From all I saw and read, he campaigned quite hard.  I saw about 10 to 1 more Clark signs and only Clark billboards.  I think he also worked to present himself as a rightg-of-center candidate.  There's also the possibility that Ms. Vinis, campaigning as a progressive who would follow the same general philosophy as Mayor Piercy, was simply more to the liking of the voters.

A: Yes
****
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
****