Nevertheless, the fundamental error of regarding bros and/or brodies as less than intellectual raises all-natural doubts about the ultimate standard that determines the brohemian level of any proposed radicalization. For one thing, this analysis of a stoked construct as a pair of sets of awesome features may remedy and, at the same time, de-fearify the levels of stoke from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual clown car antics (eg (98d)). However, this awe-assumption is not correct, since a descriptively adequate bro-language is, apparently, brotesquley cerebralized by a general convention regarding the forms of the stoke linguistics. If the gestalt of the grinding in (99c) were only partially tangible to stokeologists, the earlier bro discussion of brofanity is not to be considered in bro metamorphosis a stipulation to place the stoked/awesome/radical/clowncar into these various categories. Nevertheless, a case of pitted stoke of a different sort is not to be considered in bro metamorphosis an abstract underlying sub-stoke order. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article