In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

[EX Q]: Comment: T-Rex was a pain in the ass, but not endless. In fact they completed the project early, 22 months!, and under budget, 3.2%. That's very telling for a construction company.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: The voters in this country have SPOKEN very DECISIVELY, Bye, Bye, Good riddance Hillary & Billy, Do not let the door hit you in the Arse on your way out.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Absolutely OK. To repeat myself, I think at least $1,000 max as a deterrent is appropriate. As it is now violators don't think twice about risking violating the ordinance. Leave it to the court's discretion what is the right amount by judging mitigating circumstances (ignorance, remorse, or other extenuating facts). I'm not at all backing away from my original comment and these two replies to yours, despite what I think about about them. Now, you're introducing a straw man issue as a red herring to try to bolster your untenable opinion - smoking in the park. Compliance with the law, whether we agree with them or not, is hopefully not based on economic circumstance. The punishment/penalty phase (court) is an opportunity to consider such. Plus, the cop doesn't have to issue the citation anyways if he/she feels it's inappropriate. I really don't understand your problem or where you're coming from. Would you be placated if I said "up to"? That being said, I'm done replying to you.
[EX A]:
Non-sexual-explicit