Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: I appreciate your comment about there being possible factors that contributed to the accident which do not have anything to do with the pilot. We have been told by the NTSB that they will be investigating those areas. Those of us making comments only know the immediate outcome. As well as determining probable cause, if possible, the NTSB may also make safety recommendations. I read a briefing of one accident report which states that the NTSB had issued 34 safety recommendations and these were not limited to the actions of the pilots; one recommendation was to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I have read of ones related to a particular part of an aircraft which applies to the manufacturer of that part, and so on... I will provide bird strike data answers a question contained in another comment.

I also appreciate that you are obviously proactive in the area of aviation safety, having listed the Medallion Foundation.
Example Output: No

Example Input: From their own website: The 1976 state law establishing the Permanent Fund (AS 37.13), states that the Fund was created:
to provide a means of conserving a portion of the state's revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans
to maintain safety of principal while maximizing total return
to be a savings device managed to allow maximum use of disposable income for purposes designated by law.

I think that's pretty clear insofar as it's purpose. To conserve for the benefit of all generations of Alaskans. Using the principal to produce earning to fund government (like Norway did for example) is certainly one way the fund, using a POMV payment model, would provide benefit to all generations of Alaskan's, not just the individuals who happen to live in Alaska for a year, then get a dividend that second year.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: And how does corporate welfare we are all paying for, in a global economy suit your careful sensibility? The narrow focus of one aspect of manipulation of so much that is interconnected, shows how you could move elsewhere, yet still manage to complain about indigenous land ownership in perpetuity.

They had all that before the European industrial revolution allowed them to steal with impunity. And treaty upon treaty was supposed to allow them to recover from that loss; yet the indigenous peoples were repeatedly put into a smaller holding cell & given less rations than previously.

You are on stolen property & yet would seek to stand 'your' ground there? ;)
Example Output:
No