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

Q: These oil companies are trying to be enemies of the very state that gave them untold riches. They aren't going broke because of Alaska. You'd think the bootlickers would figure that out. If these oil companies want our oil, then they'd best be our friends, like they used to say we were. We are an Owner State, not a Company State. If you wanna help us out here, since we've been real nice to you, Oilies, I'd suggest to ease up on the rip-offs.

A: No
****
Q: For me, in public interests dialogue, civility is basic. If you prefer to deal in issues of civility rather than public interest substance, then this forum on news articles will not satisfy you. Nor should it! Confrontation over civility is not among its' (:or my own) goals.

A: No
****
Q: She sounds like she could be a welcome addition to that group; she's smart, she is detail-oriented and energetic enough to actually research issues, and her training should come in handy. I suppose she has faults, which Paul Conte has enumerated, but she is only one of many on that group. Her weakness should be balanced by others' strengths.

On the other hand, I find it completely reprehensible that Clair Syrett voted for her based primarily on the configuration of the organs between her legs; and even more so that Syrett didn't even know who the other members on the commission were.

A:
No
****