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

Example input: First off IDIOTS HIS HONDA IS NOT STOLEN I HAVE THE TITLE SIGNED OFF BY LAST OWNER IN MY POSSESSION.2ND THE ONLY THING HE WAS IN TROUBLE FOR BEFORE THE CHASE WAS FOR NOT CHECKING IN WITH HIS PROBATION OFFICER WHICH BRINGS THIS FACT TO LIGHT.YOU CAN DOWNLOAD DOUGLAS COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT LIST OF CURRENT PEOPLE ON PROBATION AND SCROLL THROUGH THE ENTIRE LIST HIS NAME IS NOWHERE ON IT.I ALSO HAVE THAT LIST ON MY PHONE DIRECTLY FROM TTHEIR WEBSIGHT SO THEREFORE I AM GOING TO INVESTIGATE MORE AND BE FILING PAPERWORK AND IF NEEDBE I WILL GO THRU FBI TO RESOLVE THE ACTIONS OF THE CROOKED DEALINGS OF DCPD....IF YOURE GONNA WRITE A STORY ABOUT SOMEONE YOU SHOULD GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT..ALSO I WAS NOT ON PHONE WITH MY SON DURING THE CHASE.HE CALLED ME AT THE BEGINNING OF CHASE AND AFTER HE LEFT HIS CAR.THE DEPUTIES WERE RIGHT HE4E WITH ME DURING MOST OF CHASE .SO AGAIN GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT..I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MY SONS SINCE THEN...
Example output: Yes
Example explanation: The comment here contains all caps phrase which is interpreted as strong language in text. Also, it has word 'IDIOTS' which is meant as an derogatory attack on a subject. This should be severly toxic . Hence, it is a positive example
Q: Saynt "I see it's not possible to have a fact based or rational discussion with you..."
FACT: Malthus and his followers like Ehrlich have been predicting running out of resources for two years. They have always been wrong. People who continue to predict running our of stuff are repeating 200 year old mistakes. That makes them fools and idiots. They ( and apopearently you ) need to re-read https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
You should also read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Saynt "You're expressing an emotional adherence to an ideological worldview that considers only part of the picture of human impacts and experience in favor of phantom wealth, and that is dismissive of all science and concerns that don't comport with that view.
ME Why don't YOU cough up some actual facts and evidence, instead of a page full of links to papers?
A:
Yes