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

[EX Q]: This is just another of Nathan's veiled defenses of homophobia. My gay friends can't be holy unless they go straight or celibate. This isn't a "challenge" this is prejudice pure and simple.

Imago Dei = Westboro Church without the colorful signs.

Having said that, let's all have a moment of silence for Jules Bailey's political career. May it rest in peace. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, defeat on election day.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: This is how you prime the political pump. You had to read 2/3 down the page to find out what was in the bill. I'm not persuaded that any of this is going to stick. Dermot, do some of your stealth digging around and find out what is really going on. Sounds like all the state is going to get is a stretched out Big Oil tax credit with a little cut to make is appear that Big Oil is taking a hit when they're not.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: James, you are ignoring the fact that if the shoe had been on the other foot, and four MEN had violated an occupied WOMEN'S rest room, there would have been widespread media coverage and public outrage over the event. That is called "hypocrisy", something which you apparently do not understand.
[EX A]:
Yes