Categorize the comment on the basis of obscenity. If the comment is obscene output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: As the May 17th train leaves the station - those surprised by the city's timing might have benefited from a full exposure of the election. Notice folks:  Glenwood *doesn't need* roundabouts. Jim Wildish, LTD chair, owns huge re-zonable riverfront acreage on Franklin (.5mi south from bridge). Glenwood won't get any less valuable as Eugene bursts at the seams, and Springfield's the only place left with affordable housing, utilities, and business space - so whats the rush?  A CLT parking lot is a costly anachronism. CLT *won't* be developed in Springfield because the investors aren't there. The mayor's 'hail Mary' for a dead wood products industry, her signature project, is now on an almost unstoppable trajectory to build Patel's hotel.  A convention center won't want poor folk's homes or inclusionary zoning that might mar river vistas. This status quo has radical, long term consequences. Its why I ran for mayor. Passivity is expensive, and it allows others to decide (and own) our future.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: But don't you want us to kill a lot more terrorist?   It's clear Obama has no taste for an occupying war, and he won't carpet bomb.  What's a good American to do?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: You can't name a single Christianity inspired terrorist attack. If mass shootings are tied to religion, that religion is Islam.
[EX A]:
Yes