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

Q: " everything that's old is aew again"
That's a classic symptom of Alzheimer's.

A: No
****
Q: Rachael, you're the one who may actually be off a bit and appear to be confusing the PF  (Permanent Fund)  and the PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend. The difference is clear. The Fund itself was/is indeed truly meant to be a rainy-day fund to help support the State when the oil is inevitably gone. A moment of wondrous political clarity and foresight often not seen in our system.  The Dividend (PFD) was intended, at least in part, as a means to keep the pubic involved and monitoring the fund so that later politicians wouldn't figure out a way to get to the principle with no one to say otherwise. In retrospect it has worked just like that though maybe a little better than is healthy. With skin in the game Alaskans decry any attempt to raid the fund as it will have direct impact on them. This is the intended effect. On the downside it has created a bit of an unhealthy entitlement mentality but in general it's worked well. We still have an obligation to future generations.

A: No
****
Q: Our Legislature is now beyond dysfunctional when the Majority Leader (Charisse Millet)  has no idea what is going on inside her own majority caucus.  Besides that "Deputy Press Secretary to the House Majority" (a most critical state position I assume in these times of limited revenues) who else is the "we" in the "we've" who filed this suit?

A:
No
****