Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: In Washington, many informed voters chose not to submit their primary ballot because they knew the delegates were already divided and it was used simply for the Democrats to collect information. It was widely advertised in the local papers there that the primary was in fact meaningless. Thus, the primary ballot was also not at all representative of reflecting the will of the voters.

A: No
****
Q: There is a very simple solution that would allow non-consumptive users to contribute to state sponsored wildlife education, conservation, and wildlife viewing programs and that is to have a voluntary checkoff on the PFD application. If this were in place, one could contribute as much as one wants from one's PFD.

But there is a catch, as a non-consumptive user - I would want equal representation on the Board of Game as opposed to the second class status that non-consumptive users currently are relegated to. It is for this reason that while the hunting community may complain about non-hunters not contributing financially, in reality, this is exactly what they want as it helps them to maintain their political monopoly on fish and wildlife resources.

During a time when the state is facing a serious budget crunch, such a proposal as the above, only makes sense to help fund the above programs regardless of opposition from the hunting community.

A: No
****
Q: Damn, Celia! Seems EVERYBODY is out to get you! You must be really important!

A:
Yes
****