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

Q: I am aware of the logic behind replacing signals with roundabouts; however, I was wondering if the logic is actually working at Dowling because the roundabouts seem to be too small for the traffic volume and speed, especially at rush hour.  I'm also not aware of situations where roundabouts are designed to be plaed at the end of a freeway exit ramp.  

My third paragraph comment has to do with the way Dowling St. traffic views the yield signs.  Those motorists appear to barrel through the roundabout without yielding to exit ramp vehicles.  I'm wondering if drivers assume that street traffic has the right of way over exiting freeway traffic.   APD could raise a lot of money by enforcing rules at this intersection, particularly at rush hour.

A: No
****
Q: But under the law. a gay baker could not refuse service to someone on the basis of religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. The law should treat EVERYONE equally.

A: Yes
****
Q: Thank you for writing this piece and putting out the facts in context.  Much appreciated.  While the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is the current "thorn in our paw" over public lands my hope is that folks understand that it is just a small, but painful element of a much larger plan to wrest away our public lands to allow exploitation.  That it is being done with lies about our US Constitution and our Founding Fathers is appalling and should anger all of us.  If the militias and protesters are so anxious to deal with "tyrants" and those destroying the promise of America they have only to look at the forces bent on stealing our lands for exploitation and buying our political system.  Thanks again for arguing for lawfulness and reminding citizens that our public lands legacy is on the line.

A:
Yes
****