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

Ex Input:
We could gather up the panhandlers and bus them to the fields. They'd have meaningful employment and could get back on their feet. I don't know how we'd go about assigning work. You - out to the field! You - wade through the entrails! You - clean those toilets! 
No complaining!

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
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.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
MY HUMBLE OPINION--LETS have and see a few--SMALL earth tremors !!! and hope to be done with it ??? The WORRY---as I think might be is---EARTH-holding back and GONNA slam us with a MONSTER SHAKER--again--like the 64---  wishful thinking ???!!!!

Ex Output:

No