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

[Q]: He makes $200,000 a year working for Conoco-Phillips so we already know who he represents in the legislature. Plenty of men have earned sexual favors for buying a dinner costing a lot less than $100 bucks. So let's not argue about the power of paying for a nice dinner.
[A]: Yes

[Q]: Fair enough - I'm not a doc (at least not that kind), and I'm not arguing that physicians aren't highly trained. I also don't completely agree with your analysis, some of your figures, and some of your conclusions (it's OK, on many points I do agree with you). With that... if you will just hand me that erlenmeyer and step away from the homogenizer, I'll go back to my molecules, mice, and math.
[A]: Yes

[Q]: Interesting. I knew this guy. Always figured he was the type. Very creepy. Not sure why there is so much focus on Symantec in the article though. It's not like he was managment, just a phone tech. I'd be more concerned with his church activities than his employer. As I recall he bought a large van just so he could drive around the church youth group. I hope not but expect there will be more survivors coming forward.

There was another Symantec employee in the same department that got arrested on sex abuse charges last week. I wonder if it's related.
[A]:
Yes