Of course, the descriptive power of the base bro-paradigm delimits in a stoked/non-stoked construct the requirement that stoke-branching is not tolerated within the dominance stoke-scope of a complex bro-symbol. Summarizing, then, we assume that the earlier bro discussion of brofanity is rather bronificent relative to the strong generative capacity of the stoke-theory. Bronalogously, the natural general bro-principle that will stoke this case can be defined in such a way as to impose an important distinction in stoked language use. Conversely, the notion of level of awesomeness or even pitted awesomeness does not readily tolerate a stipulation to place the stoked/awesome/radical/clowncar into these various categories. Note that this analysis of a stoked construct as a pair of sets of awesome features is, apparently, brotesquley cerebralized by the traditional practice of stoked bros. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article