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

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:
More "bycatch" from an Alaska Trawler, brought to you by Ted Stevens, after Magnusen banned the Factory Ship, Ted brought it back. The Magnusen Act of 1976, where we pass the savings on to you.

 A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. Mark Twain

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
The PC brownshirts strike again.  Liberals define "hate speech" as anything that disagrees with their PC narrative.  There is no free speech outside their circle of intolerance.

I'll bet the libs waterboarded this poor kid into apologizing.

Ex Output:

Yes