Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

Input: Consider Input: "What Zuckerberg has done is to substitute the largely uninformed opinions of one-third of the population as to what constitutes news for the judgments of thousands of trained journalists, most of whom have made collecting and reporting the news their careers."

These would be the 'judgments' of the 'trained journalists' who predicted Trump's winning the Republican nomination for President, right?    How about predicting that Bernie Sanders would be anything more than a minor footnote in the contest  against She  Who  Will soon be Anointed Queen of the Democrats?  The 'trained journalists' score on that one?

Seems to me that the 'largely uninformed opinions' (I think of them as votes) left those 'trained journalists' with egg on their faces.

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: You're not paying attention.  It's obvious by your drivel that you have no idea how the state budget works and is funded.  The only thing the Democrats are obstructing is paying for 3/4 of budget with savings at the peril of future PFD's.  That's completely obvious and transparent.  Your frequent biased (not to mention overtly prejudice) rants are ridiculous and entirely outside the relm reality.  By your engament on this forum it's obvious you read and write - but the comprehension has me worried.  I'd recommend slowing down and really concentrating on the material.  This letter from from Cpt Conoco should be classified as a work of fiction....just a heads up.

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: Why are we allowing this team to lead the district?  WHY?


Output: No