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.

Comment: Thanks for your kind words Phrogge.

Francis is an enigma to me. He says really good things, and the way he lives is personal life is refreshing, and truly admirable. But at the same time, he seems to miss some really big things, often seeming to err on the side of clericalism. The scandal is probably as good an example of this as any. He KNOWS that the laity wants accountability, yet, he walked away from his "tribunal" idea, and appears to have all but abandoned the Commission. Both of those were greeted with high hopes from the laity. I for one was truly saddened to read Maria's piece when she quit, and mentioned that she never even got to talk to the pope. Guess he has more important things to do...

The gap exists, but I strongly suspect that's what's giving the Spirit room to work. Something new will emerge, and I fear the bishops will be the last to see it. At our core, we still thirst for good news, for meaning, for compassion, and wisdom. That's the hope, and the seed...
Non-threat

Comment: 1. The same restrictions we all have when it comes to what we say publicly. They are not allowed to slander or libel anyone, the same as us, but otherwise are free to say whatever is on their mind.
2. Why should anyone be punished for something they said, assuming it was neither slanderous or libelous? People who want other people punished for something they said have absolutely no concept of what "free speech" means.
3. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Contrary to the practices of either party, I believe the rule of law needs to be upheld. Both Republicans and Democrats alike are corrupt to the core, and both do this nation far more harm than good.

Remember, the First Amendment does not exist to protect speech with which we all agree. The First Amendment exists to protect the speech with which we disagree. Clearly this is a concept that Democrats are unable to grasp.
Non-threat

Comment: Three shots were fired, Wavemaker, one hit him.

And yes, I agree that he deserves a civilian purple heart, and that the LEO gets what should be coming unto them, times three.

But.

Until it is shown that pigment played a role into this stupid action, leave said pigment, from either the LEO or the victim out of it.

You are so fast to identify the pigment of the LEO, or the victim, that within your own mind, it MUST be a racist shooting, whence you know nothing regarding said motivation.

IF it is shown that this individual LEO has had made past statements degrading those of pigment, or culture, or has posted degrading comments of those of different pigment, or culture, than yes, add that charge as well.

Until such time, Wavemaker, this individual LEO made an incredibly moronic decision that will cost him his livelihood, freedom, AND the city within it occurred, deservedly so, mind you, millions of dollars.

I wish, I truly do, that WE, as a NATION, become pigment blind, and equal.
Non-threat