Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: Excellent Info-mercial.
[A]: No


[Q]: Right now I wished I was Kim Jung Il, and I'd stand Hawker, Chenault, K. Olson, Johnson, and the rest of them, up against  the wall and let the firing squad do their job, as these piece's of shite, have put us in this mess and have done nothing about it, except to drop to their knees in front of their true masters, wipe off their chins and ask for more.....
[A]: Yes


[Q]: No, Martin. You quite clearly stated that you were offended that people similarly situated to your grandfather viewed his music as "speaking to something authentic". You are implying that it is YOU who determines what is or is not authentic - and since you have determined that his music does NOT speak to something authentic, you are offended that those people who DO think it speaks to something authentic exist at all. 

It's very confusing to try to sort through, because it requires two wildly irrational assumptions. First is that Springsteen's heart, mind, and soul have been irrevocably damaged by the acquisition of money to the point he can not empathize with the very class of people he spent his entire life surrounded by, and is no longer capable of sincerity about those issues and experiences. The second is that somehow YOU have a sense of what is and is not authentic which surpasses both his AND his fans, who despite your claims, come from all walks of life, all over the globe.
[A]:
No