In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

Comment: We have plenty of money lets give em a new car and house too. PERS is fully funded so lets splurge!!! Darn right this is a emergency those illegal aliens are dropping like flies.
Obscene

Comment: If these pipelines are successfully blocked we could be seeing the beginning of the end for confederation as we know it. It is not as if those against pipelines are actually acting as if they are concerned about the environment. They still want al the advantages of oil. The store shelves would be empty without oil. Then there are those that go home and heat their homes and cook using the dirtiest fuel called wood and or biomass. ( it should be BioMESS)
Non-obscene

Comment: Guess I struck a nerve.

Of the 20+ posts, almost half of them are from you, each in its own way defending Your Js. 8 posts? You need 8 posts extolling the virtues of a bench/role/utility player who should get no more than around 300 PA?

Pivot, divert, segue, obfuscate, muddle, talk trash, cherry pick, ignore, these are your tactics when challenged on your views.

Just 1 e.g.: you defend the Js payroll, or at least imply you do, though nobody knows what it is. Why would this rich organization not spend to the cap, before the luxury tax kicks in?

The offer to Encarnacion has been withdrawn, it is not at present on the table, though it could re-appear. My suspicions are that the offer of 4 years of $80 mill was made knowing it would be rejected, and is unlikely to be re-offered. 2 years, maybe an option for year 3 at most.

He's too old, this team has to get younger, and signing FA in their mid-30s for this team, dumb.
Non-obscene