Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Input: Consider Input: To paraphrase Douglas Adams:  It has been said that Alaskan legislators are not above a little bribery and corruption in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds.

Alaska is not a corporation.  It's a government of the people being run by corporations through their representatives, who we vote for; otherwise known as a Kleptocracy.

Alaskans opted for this when we decided we didn't want to pay for our government, and gave that over to the oil industry, ignoring the time-honored maxim, "You get what you pay for."  The trouble is, the oil companies don't have the Alaskan Constitution written into their charters and are running the state for their own benefit, not ours.

So now we have a legislature that primarily represents Big Oil and that's exactly how the majority of Alaskan voters want it.

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: Sorry, but anyone who believes that Saudi Arabia's ultra-reactionary philosophy of bigotry and hatred of other religions ( including other sects of Islam )  is anything new is either blatantly lying, or is insane.

So OK, if he is not lying, then I guess that we can say that the poor man is delusional, and is mentally ill.

I've posted clear facts showing that other members of the press ( and even his own newspaper, the New York Times ), have known about this for a very long time.    This is not a new development.  Not by any means.   To state otherwise, as he has done here in this editorial, is to spread FALSEHOODS.

What he said is a LIE.   For it is NOT TRUE.

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: That makes a bad principal?  Seriously!


Output: No