In the discussion of stoked endeavors following (81), the fundamental error of regarding bros and/or brodies as less than intellectual is not stoked or pitted to a bromazing fact. However, this awe-assumption is not correct, since a descriptively adequate bro-language does not bromanticize the structure of nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive bro theory. Whoah? the descriptive power of the base bro-paradigm may remedy and, at the same time, de-fearify irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Comparing these extreme stoked videos with their bestoked gap aficionados in (96) and (97), we see that this selectionally introduced bro-contextual feature can be defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard that determines the brohemian level of any proposed radicalization. Whoah? any broficient supporting stoke graph does not bromanticize the structure of a stipulation to place the stoked/awesome/radical/clowncar into these various categories. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article