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

[Q]: I find it ironic Andre that you asked for my discretion when you were worried that making public the concerns you shared with me would have an adverse impact on your potential employment situation several years ago. Remember? Hypocrite much? And despite the widely acknowledged successes electorally and policy wise of the AFL during my tenure you have taken multiple occasions to say how dumb and unreasonable I've been. Please be specific.
[A]: Yes

[Q]: Eliza Kashinsky, you are a sorry, sorry case. Are you so unsure of your dogma that you have to hide your identity?

I have no financial interests in Eugene real estate other than the single-family home I bought when you were just a pain in some parents' eyes.

Yet, in contrast to your ignorance about Eugene development practices, I could qualify as a real estate genius. The redevelopment of the SW-SAZ, _against the will of the community_, would displace working folks in affordable, single-family homes with higher cost condos and apartments.

Please go back to defending the poor, downtrodden atheists (like myself), as you were doing before you moved to Eugene.

-- Paul
[A]: No

[Q]: Bribe-taking liars and con-artists.... and you people voted for them...............
Wow... let's pass some more legislation giving the oil companies another free ride. We are not paying them enough to take that smelly old dirty oil. We need to get rid of it, after all, it is a hazardous material............
[A]:
Yes