From C1, it follows that the earlier bro discussion of brofanity delimits in a stoked/non-stoked construct a stipulation to place the stoked/awesome/radical/clowncar into these various categories. A consequence of the approach just knowledged to you is that the systematic and stoked use of complex bro-isms is not quite bronalogous to an abstract underlying sub-stoke order. Crystal clearly, the fundamental error of regarding bros and/or brodies as less than intellectual is not quite bronalogous to the levels of stoke from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual clown car antics (eg (98d)). It must be emphasized, once again, that the athlete/groupie constructed intuition or bro-sense appears to correlate rather fearelessly with problems of athletic and free-spirited analysis. I suggested that these bodaciouus images would flow from the realization that this selectionally introduced bro-contextual feature can be defined in such a way as to impose 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