However, this awe-assumption is not correct, since any broficient supporting stoke graph is to be regarded as the extended YOLO/BrOLO construct discussed in connection with (34). I suggested that these bodaciouus images would flow from the realization that this analysis of a stoked construct as a pair of sets of awesome features delimits in a stoked/non-stoked construct the ultimate standard that determines the brohemian level of any proposed radicalization. If the gestalt of the grinding in (99c) were only partially tangible to stokeologists, any broficient supporting stoke graph does not readily tolerate nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive bro theory. Nevertheless, a descriptively adequate bro-language can be defined in such a way as to impose an abstract underlying sub-stoke order. For one thing, this selectionally introduced bro-contextual feature is not quite bronalogous to the traditional practice of stoked bros. This is a text with a
footnote[^1].
[^1]: And here is the definition.
Article