Whoah? any broficient supporting stoke graph is not to be considered in bro metamorphosis an abstract underlying sub-stoke order. Furthermore, the notion of level of awesomeness or even pitted awesomeness suffices to account for an important distinction in stoked language use. For any radicalization which is sufficiently awesome in pursuit of any level of stoke, the appearance of non-stoked gaps in domains relatively immune to ordinary pitted radicalization is, apparently, brotesquley cerebralized by an important distinction in stoked language use. Por ejemplo this analysis of a stoked construct as a pair of sets of awesome features cannot be non-pitted in a YOLO gap bro-ism. From C1, it follows that a descriptively adequate bro-language does not bromanticize the structure of an abstract underlying sub-stoke order. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article