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

Example Input: This is why Dick. Like Great bear`s Jim Duncan said when they tied up land along the TAPS right-of-war for a song... and the CONVENTIONAL oil and gas under it sir.  Reporters asked the famous bank-robbing safe-cracker Willy Sutton a similar question, "Willy, why did you keep robbing so many banks for so long?".  "Because that`s where they keep the money" Willy answered.   Old criminals can add Dick, why can`t you and the rest of the oil shills?  The following chart does NOT include UN-conventional oil and gas from shale oil and gas fracking, or heavy oil, or hydrates.  Those have reserves as well as far as the state goes, even as unproven reserves.. they add value to being in Alaska sir, rather than Saudi Arabia where Exxon bid a production job to only make two dollars a barrel after costs.  They made 123% internal rate of return under ACES! They wanted more, and got it by illegally gerrymandering around certain "enclaves" of communities, then have their conflicted folks destroy ACES.
Example Output: No

Example Input: The Alaska GOP's first choice was to relocate all of Alaska's homeless,handicapped,and working poor people to FEMA forced labor work camps,but in the end,decided it would be easier to just kill them off,by denying them health care,instead..
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: I'm ever so glad that someone in Nanny land is protecting NIMBY from his spelling errors.  I saw the post come through which suggested his credibility was lacking because he couldn't spell forest correctly after three tries and it isn't on the thread.  It magically disappeared.

Good job, Nanny Comments!
Example Output:
No