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

[Q]: Well said, rational, scientific based fishery management will result in greater abundance, for all user groups.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: The state is paying a huge sum for Furie to drill down deep into formations thought to hold large pockets of gas and oil that the previous drillers never bothered to drill to because they had access to smaller pockets already producing. The "renaissance" was to get them to drill to that "deep" zone. It wasn`t classified or secret if it`s the same deal I`m thinking about.  You`ll notice the companies never discuss the depths they are referring to?... there`s a reason for that.  When they hit the pocket it then becomes confidential information between the DNR and the drilling company.  But we do know what the "intended" depth was that the state contracted with Furie to go to, before it reported the find.  I would think the depth is confidential from the public unless I`m mistaken.  Large credits and subsidies should end now that Conoco/Agrium have enough gas, demonstrating there is no longer a need for Alaska to suffer fiscally as there is no shortage of gas anymore.
[A]: No


[Q]: How come if I steal a $.99 cent Reese's Peanut Butter Cup from Fred Myers in Anchorage,I get 6 months in jail,but when a politician steals $800,000 dollars of Tax Payers money,they get a "recall election" ?
[A]:
Yes