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

[Q]: No link to another story...not easy in these forums to post one, either.

However, your response shows you have an only slightly hidden agenda about something that, like what's indicated by your pseudonym, is legal and generally accepted in Oregon. I hope your use of 4:20 will lead to an expanded consciousness and acceptance.
[A]: No


[Q]: Because we need a legal mind to instand all the carefully worded inserts that have been used to steal tax credits. Juneau Republicans can not read. Except spot dotted line to sign! Everyone else will be like Randy "veco" Ruedrich! We have many in party still.
[A]: No


[Q]: Editorial corrections are late to the party.  If you write a letter to the RG, be advised that it will get "filtered" and modified thru an editor's opinion even if it doesn't improve the clarity of your opinion.  More often than not, it detracts from the intent of the author, as in this case.  They also omit entire sentences for their own reasons.  It's very condescending and similar to dogs marking fire hydrants.

Some letters might need spiffing for grammar and spelling but wholesale edits and omissions amount to censoring.
[A]:
No