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

Example Input: the whole kid dog scenario of yours frank is a good example of how someone with a negative opinion but nothing to support it spins a story to get support. Add your "he should be reported to the FAA" and it really looks like you are desperate prove this guy is an evil maniac instead of a dad protecting his child.
I wonder though, are you a dog lover or a gun hater? I am betting the latter, as most dog lovers, myself included know that dogs are not allowed to endanger children. EVER!
Example Output: No

Example Input: It appears that you won't be satisfied until you run this woman owned small business into bankruptcy and it is replaced by a Starbucks. You must be smugly satisfied with your efforts to stick it to the Man...eh, Woman.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: I hear where you're coming from on this. Michael, but there seems to be some misconception about the relationship between the restriping and the sidewalks. The current plan says nothing about the sidewalks; if and when they are widened. it will be away from the street - not into the existing street. That plan was rejected years ago.

I am not in favor of the restriping, but I do hope to live to see the sidewalks fixed and widened. In some places, like the west side of the 27th and Willamette intersection, the sidewalks are difficult to navigate due to the narrowness and EWEB's equipment. Add in the bicyclists who still use the sidewalks - not all transients either, JP - and you have sidewalks that are pretty much impassible at times.
Example Output:
No