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

[EX Q]: Your posts don't bother me, Donkel!

From the ridiculous, scary, baseless hyperbole to the UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION, I THINK you should KEEP ON DOING what you're DOING.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Yes, and then cut oil subsidies - all of them.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: But the thing is...she couldn't have said anything else. If you are a musher and you say anything bad about the Iditarod, they can ban you. It's the new gag order on mushers, which I think is incredibly newsworthy. She couldn't say that she wasn't "satisfied with how the ITC was handling it," in fact she was specifically obligated to say that she WAS satisfied, because she's not allowed to say anything bad. Medred decided that this wasn't OK and went ahead with the story, a decision I think was right.

I guess he could have left her name out of it, but perhaps the info was already out there and telling the story with no name attached would have been weird.
[EX A]:
No