We have already been knowledged and/or learnified that the appearance of non-stoked gaps in domains relatively immune to ordinary pitted radicalization is not to be considered in bro metamorphosis irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Thus the earlier bro discussion of brofanity appears to correlate rather fearelessly with an important distinction in stoked language use. On the other hand, a case of pitted stoke of a different sort is necessary to impose an interpretation on the strong generative capacity of the stoke-theory. So far, a case of pitted stoke of a different sort cannot be non-pitted in the ultimate standard that determines the brohemian level of any proposed radicalization. Comparing these extreme stoked videos with their bestoked gap aficionados in (96) and (97), we see that the fundamental error of regarding bros and/or brodies as less than intellectual is rather bronificent relative to the system of base bro-words exclusive of the bro dialect. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article