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

[Q]: Native: It's affirming to read such a positive post.

My background is 28 years of teaching/counseling dysfunctional adolescents. So I've been called most everything you can imagine and many things you can't. Each of those exchanges was a opportunty to discuss both the source of the anger and, at the same time, consider other ways of dealing with issues.

While it's probably presumptuous of me, I'd like to be able to help Boozer deal with his anger involving the Markets. It "eats you away", both figuratively and literally, to spend your days with intense unresolved anger.

Thank you for your supportive words....regards, Gary
[A]: No

[Q]: bwahahahahahahaha. The mentally ill cannot change their way of thinking, and above all else, liberalism is a mental illness.
[A]: Yes

[Q]: I think this article chooses to ignore the more common sense complaints made by those of us who don't like the way this city is currently being developed. We can accept that some houses will be torn down and replaced with apartments in the name of density, but too often these numbers are used to justify wasteful and short-sighted building practices. For instance, in the case of the Eastmoreland sequoia lots (a story I imagine developers and sympathizers of this article scoffed at), the neighborhood offered a very viable plan to build two smaller houses on the property without clearcutting the land, along with compensation for preserving the trees. Such houses would have been more affordable, and saved a valuable public resource: big trees. This option was rejected because the developer didn't have kit houses of the right size and shape available. A little creativity, common sense, and smarts could solve both the issue of density and destruction of the things we like about PDX.
[A]:
No