Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.
One example is below.
Q: Baloney. You are going to see real action against Herr Trump and his white supremacist agenda.
A: Yes
Rationale: The comment suggests threat against Trump and his agendas and classified as threatening. Hence, it is a positive example
Q: Best wishes to President Johnsen and regents and most importantly campuses faculty/ staff/ students. President Johnsen said "Lower funding levels will force UA to move much more quickly than it should, which given UA's large size, wide geographic distribution, long notice requirements, and complexity of the three university system organization will force decisions that are less strategic and more focused on areas where savings can be achieved quickly." I disagree they got themselves into this. Strategic Pathways is something that should have been ongoing, proactive, and not last- minute reactive. Earlier this week, I talked with a student who couldn't transfer credits from one campus to another. That's ridiculous. And inefficient. This system, that's mutated since statehood, needs to become massively more administratively efficient. I think the governor should appoint an outside commission and consider constitutional revision of this expensive inefficient academic enclave.
A:
No