The committee would likely attribute that to the novelty of the argument.

But they would be mistaken.

Novelty alone had never been sufficient to hold his attention for two uninterrupted hours. He had attended lectures whose conclusions promised to reorder entire fields only to find himself thinking about entirely unrelated problems before the first half-hour had elapsed.

Their lecture had never permitted that luxury. Every time his attention had threatened to wander, they had asked precisely the question required to reclaim it, anticipating objections almost before they had fully formed in the audience's mind. He disliked admitting how rarely that happened.

Most of the equations had survived the applause untouched. The committee would erase them before the next session, reducing 30 minutes of argument to a clean sheet of slate. It had always struck him as an oddly honest ritual. A theory earned permanence only by surviving in other people's minds. 

It occurred to him, not for the first time, that he remembered their lectures with a clarity he rarely afforded his own. Entire conferences dissolved into indistinct impressions within seconds, yet he could still reconstruct arguments they had delivered earlier, not merely their conclusions but the precise sequence in which each premise had been introduced. He had never decided whether that reflected unusually disciplined memory or a failure of objectivity.

His eyes settled upon the expressions written across the centre of the board.

He had spent enough years working with mathematics to know that the smallest alterations were often the most dangerous. Entire disciplines had been overturned by substitutions that, to the untrained eye, appeared almost trivial.

His first instinct had been to search for the mistake.

It was still what he was doing.

Not because he objected to the conclusion, because conclusions interested him very little. They could always be revised.

Assumptions were another matter.

Every proof possessed one.

Usually, it announced itself within the first five minutes.

They had concealed theirs.

His gaze remained upon the second equation.

Not concealed, he corrected himself after a moment.

Established.

There was a difference.

He found that disliked that distinction.

He closed his eyes, less in concentration than in recollection.

The lecture returned with unexpected precision. He remembered remarkably little of the audience, almost nothing of the hall itself. What remained was the argument, stripped clean of circumstance until only its internal structure persisted. He retraced it as he would a proof encountered in an unfamiliar paper, testing each transition independently before permitting himself the next.

There was a familiarity to the exercise that extended beyond the mathematics itself. He had reconstructed enough of their arguments these past  few months to recognise certain habits of thought before they appeared outright: the reluctance to introduce new terminology without necessity, the preference for replacing assumptions rather than multiplying them, the quiet confidence with which they allowed conclusions to emerge instead of announcing them. He knew those patterns almost as well as his own.

The opening had been almost deceptively ordinary. A question of identity, a survey of familiar positions. Nothing in the first several minutes had suggested that the conclusion would depart so radically from the existing literature. Even their criticisms had been restrained. They had granted every established model its successes before asking whether they had all inherited the same unnoticed assumption.

That was where his attention had sharpened.

Not because the observation was particularly controversial, but because it was correct.

State-based models did begin from the premise that identity existed as something presently describable. His own work was no exception. He had simply never regarded the premise as requiring defense. Like every assumption sufficiently fundamental, it had long ago become invisible.

He could almost remember the moment they themselves had first become dissatisfied with the premise. Over successive conversations, he had watched their questions migrate steadily toward the problem until abandoning the assumption altogether appeared less like inspiration than inevitability. 

He opened his eyes again.

The equations remained exactly where they had left them.

The alteration itself was almost embarrassingly small. A single substitution. State replaced by history. Had it appeared in isolation, he would have dismissed it as a notational preference unworthy of extended discussion. Instead, it had been supported by argument, each premise established before the next was introduced, until the final equation appeared less like an innovation than the inevitable consequence of everything that had preceded it.

He found that deeply irritating…

Because he had not yet discovered where he disagreed. 

He was accustomed to anticipating the direction of another scholar's reasoning several steps before they arrived there. With them, the experience was persistently different. Not opaque — opacity merely disguised confusion — but clear enough that every transition appeared obvious only after it had been made. It was an intellectual experience he trusted perhaps more than he should have.

It took him a moment to realize the auditorium had begun speaking again.

At first they remained subdued, as though the audience had not yet decided whether the lecture had truly concluded. Then the restraint dissolved. Conversations resumed across the hall in overlapping fragments, chairs shifted against the stone floor, and the measured silence that had governed the afternoon gave way to the familiar disorder of scholars attempting to think aloud all at once.

He paid them little attention.

The argument had reached a point that refused to release him.

If identity depended upon history rather than state, then the present ceased to function as the foundation of the model. It became evidence instead, the latest expression of an unbroken sequence of transformations. That much followed. The difficulty lay in the consequences. Every theorem he had developed over the past decade assumed precisely the opposite direction of dependence.

A voice entered his thoughts.

"...remarkable presentation."

Cerces.

Anaxagoras looked up only long enough to see her crossing the stage toward them.

He found himself wishing he could do the same.

Why couldn’t he?

"Congratulations," someone else offered, extending a hand before they had even stepped away from the lectern. "Your paper—has it been submitted for publication?"

Another scholar was already waiting with a question, notebook open.

"I wonder if I might challenge your use of 'history'..."

They answered before he had finished.

Patiently.

Without retreating into the language of their lecture.

Others approached them with the restless enthusiasm reserved for novelty, eager either to congratulate or to dismantle what everyone had just heard. He found himself strangely uninterested in both. 

Praise had never seemed an especially reliable measure of merit, and criticism could wait until he understood the argument as thoroughly as they did. 

They deserved at least that much from him.

Anaxagoras listened almost absently, not to the exchange itself, but to the reasoning beneath it. They rebuilt the distinction from first principles, arriving at the same conclusion by a different route. The structure held.

Interesting.

He returned to the proof.

If transformation were primitive, then state could no longer be treated as an independent variable...

No.

Not quite.

The objection formed almost as quickly as it appeared, only to dissolve before he could give it shape.

A second voice interrupted.

"I've never seen a student argue like that."

"Neither have I."

The remarks passed around him without inviting response.

He found, somewhat to his irritation, that he wanted the same thing.

As the crowd around the lectern continued to grow, what had begun as a series of polite congratulations had become, almost imperceptibly, another seminar. Someone had appropriated a discarded programme and was already sketching diagrams across its margins. A younger researcher attempted to reformulate the definition of history in terms of information theory, only to be interrupted by a philosopher who objected to the comparison before it had fully taken shape.

They listened to each in turn.

Anaxagoras had noticed, throughout the lecture, that they possessed an unusual habit. They did not defend conclusions. They defended the reasoning that produced them. If an objection exposed a weakness in an argument, they abandoned the argument without hesitation and rebuilt it from the last point both parties still accepted.

It was an unexpectedly disciplined way of thinking.

Most scholars, once sufficiently invested in an idea, became its advocates.

They remained its examiner.

He watched them pause before answering another question.

Not searching for a reply.

Testing one.

The distinction was slight.

It was also immediately recognisable.

One did not hesitate because one lacked an answer. One hesitated because the first answer that presented itself had not yet earned the right to be spoken.

He found the habit...

Familiar.

The thought arrived before he had intended it to.

Until that afternoon, he had regarded them as an exceptionally capable student.

The description remained factually correct.

It no longer seemed intellectually complete.

"They're looking for you."

Cerces had returned.

Anaxagoras shifted his attention with visible reluctance.

"The panel dinner begins in an hour," they continued. "Apparently someone has decided you'll be expected to attend."

"I was already expected to attend."

"Yes."

Cerces smiled faintly.

"I meant, expected to converse."

"I see."

For a moment, neither of them spoke.

Cerces followed his gaze towards the gathering at the front of the hall.

"They've acquired rather a following."

Cerces considered the crowd for another moment.

"I'm not entirely convinced it will diminish."

Anaxagoras offered no opinion.

He pushed himself away from the pillar for the first time since the lecture had begun.

The movement felt strangely belated, as though his body had resumed following a conversation his mind had never left.

One last glance settled upon the board.

The committee had begun erasing it.

A sleeve swept across the upper corner of the slate, removing the first equation in a cloud of white dust.

The second remained untouched.

For another few moments.

Then he turned and left the auditorium.

He did not look back, because he had already decided what he needed.

The manuscript.

He had expected conversation.

Instead, he found himself waiting.

The committee had selected the Senior Combination Room for the evening meal, a decision justified publicly by tradition and privately by capacity. The room had hosted generations of scholars whose disagreements had long outlived them. Portraits of former masters regarded the gathering from dark-paneled walls with the patient severity peculiar to oil paintings, while conversations accumulated beneath the timbered ceiling until no single voice remained distinguishable from the rest.

Anaxagoras arrived neither early nor late. Punctuality, he had always maintained, was a courtesy rather than a virtue, and the interval he had allowed between leaving the auditorium and crossing the courtyard had been sufficient to exchange chalk for ink without inviting unnecessary conversation along the way.

The seating had already been arranged.

He paused only long enough to locate the place card bearing his name before taking his seat.

Three chairs separated him from them.

Near enough that, once the inevitable formalities had concluded, conversation would require no effort beyond leaning slightly across the table.

He regarded that as convenient.

Nothing more.

The Master welcomed the guests with the familiar sequence of remarks offered after every symposium: gratitude to the organising committee, admiration for the quality of the presentations, cautious optimism regarding the future of the discipline. The speech neither exceeded nor fell short of expectation. It existed largely to permit the first course to arrive without awkwardness.

Anaxagoras listened politely.

He could not afterwards have repeated a single sentence.

His attention drifted, not intentionally but with a persistence that gradually became difficult to ignore.

They sat several places to his left, engaged by one of the external examiners before the soup had even been served.

The examiner, a logician whose reputation for relentless questioning had intimidated more than one doctoral defence, appeared entirely unapologetic about transforming dinner into a continuation of the afternoon's discussion.

"...if identity is historical," the older man was saying, "you surrender simultaneity as a privileged description."

"We surrender its privilege," they replied, "not its usefulness."

"A distinction."

"An important one."

The examiner smiled.

"I suspected you would say that."

Their exchange continued without sharpness. Neither attempted to overwhelm the other with terminology. Instead, they moved patiently from premise to premise, as though assembling a structure they both hoped would remain standing after the conversation ended.

Anaxagoras found himself following the discussion with unexpected ease.

Their reasoning, specifically.

He recognised the route almost before they took it.

He noticed something else.

Whenever the examiner interrupted, they did not immediately begin composing a response. They listened until the interruption had entirely exhausted itself, allowing even the unfinished thought at its edge to settle before speaking.

It was an unusual discipline.

Most academics, once they believed they understood an objection, prepared their rebuttal while the objection was still being articulated.

They never seemed to.

Their attention remained wholly with the speaker.

Only afterwards did they answer.

He wondered briefly whether that habit explained why people appeared so willing to continue talking to them.

A server arrived beside their chair, apologising softly as she reached across to replace an empty glass.

They leaned back at once to give her room.

"Thank you," they said without interrupting the examiner's thought.

The words were quiet enough that few at the table seemed to notice.

Anaxagoras did.

The observation lingered for reasons he could not immediately identify.

There was nothing remarkable about thanking someone.

Nor about moving aside.

He dismissed it.

Conversation shifted again as the first course disappeared. Someone farther down the table raised the subject of publication schedules. Another asked whether the manuscript would require substantial revision before submission. A third began recounting an anecdote from a conference several years earlier in which an argument nearly identical to today's had collapsed under a single objection from the audience.

"It wasn't identical," they answered with a small smile.

"No?"

"The assumption entered on the second page instead of the first."

Laughter moved around the table.

Even the storyteller conceded the correction.

Anaxagoras noticed the smile before he noticed himself noticing it.

It appeared rarely.

Amusement seemed to arrive only after they had genuinely considered what had been said.

It altered their face more completely than he would have expected.

For an instant, the careful composure that accompanied them through lectures and seminars receded, replaced by something warmer, younger, almost startlingly unguarded.

The expression vanished as quickly as it had come.

He found himself recalling it several moments later… An unfortunate tendency.

Memory ought to preserve information in proportion to its usefulness.

This… possessed none.

He turned his attention to the wine before him.

It remained untouched.

So did theirs.

Water, he realised, disappeared from their place far more quickly.

He frowned almost imperceptibly.

Why had he noticed that?

He searched for an explanation.

Perhaps because dehydration impaired concentration, or because speakers often neglected to drink after extended lectures.

Neither answer satisfied him.

He abandoned the question, only for another to replace it.

A second year student, seated opposite them, had begun describing an idea with more enthusiasm than precision. The proposal wandered through three different fields before arriving at a conclusion that seemed only distantly related to where it had begun.

The student hesitated, evidently aware that his explanation had wandered further than intended. His gaze shifted briefly between the two scholars before settling once more upon them.

"I've been trying," he said, with the cautious earnestness peculiar to those who suspected their question might expose a misunderstanding, "to reconcile your model with Professor Anaxagoras's work on equilibrium conditions."

If I've understood both correctly, Professor Anaxagoras begins with the present state, while your lecture argues that identity depends upon the history that produced it. I don't know which framework I'm supposed to begin with. Where your work separates."

The conversation around that section of the table diminished almost imperceptibly.

"Your lecture argues that identity is preserved by continuity of history rather than recoverable state. Professor Anaxagoras's framework, if I've understood it correctly, treats equilibrium as something determined entirely by the present configuration." He paused, frowning at his own phrasing. "At least... that's how I've always read it."

The student glanced apologetically towards Anaxagoras.

"I may be oversimplifying."

"You are," Anaxagoras replied, not unkindly. "Though not fatally."

A quiet ripple of amusement passed around the table.

Encouraged, the student continued.

"If both theories are correct within their own domains, is there a point where they become incompatible? Or is one simply a special case of the other?"

The student hesitated, evidently dissatisfied with the limits of his own understanding. His notebook had remained open throughout the discussion, though the pages contained remarkably little beyond a series of arrows connecting two names that, until that afternoon, had rarely appeared in the same conversation.

He rested a finger upon one of the diagrams he had drawn.

"Professor Anaxagoras, your equilibrium conditions appear to assume that the present state contains all the information required to describe identity. Your lecture"—his attention returned to them—"seems to argue almost the opposite: that no present description is complete without the history that produced it."

He looked between them once more.

"I don't know which framework I'm supposed to begin with."

The question did not immediately receive an answer.

Not because either lacked one, Anaxagoras suspected, but because both recognised the uncertainty concealed within its phrasing. It was not, in fact, a question about equilibrium or history. It was a request for an ordering—for permission to regard one account as foundational and the other as derivative.

He found them already looking towards him.

There was nothing especially remarkable in the gesture. Any ordinary courtesy would have dictated as much. The question concerned his work no less than theirs, and they had always displayed an almost excessive reluctance to speak where another scholar's definitions properly belonged.

Even so, he became aware, rather unexpectedly, that this was the first occasion upon which their attention had rested wholly upon him since the lecture concluded.

The student looked first towards Anaxagoras.

Then towards them.

Apparently uncertain who ought to answer first.

They turned slightly in their chair.

"So long as Professor Anaxagoras has no objection," they said, "I believe the question begins with his definitions rather than mine."

Every eye at the table shifted accordingly.

Anaxagoras regarded them for a brief moment before answering.

"I have no objection."

He rested his hands lightly upon the edge of the table.

"My framework assumes that equilibrium is identifiable from the present state because the processes that produced it are, for the purposes of the model, irrelevant once equilibrium has been reached. That is not to deny that a history exists." He inclined his head slightly towards them. "Only that the mathematics need not retain it."

The student nodded rapidly.

"And your objection?"

They considered the question with characteristic patience.

"I am not certain I would describe it as an objection."

"No?"

"No."

Their expression remained thoughtful.

"I would say instead that the irrelevance of history is itself an assumption requiring justification."

"My work assumes that equilibrium may be determined from the present configuration alone," he said. "The existence of a history is neither denied nor excluded. It is simply unnecessary to the problem under consideration."

The student nodded, then turned instinctively towards them.

They did not speak at once.

Instead, they considered Anaxagoras with the same quiet concentration they had given every serious objection that afternoon, as though examining not merely the words themselves but the assumptions that had produced them. It was a habit he had recognised in the auditorium. They rarely opposed conclusions directly. They preferred to determine whether disagreement had arisen considerably earlier, at a point where both parties still believed themselves to be speaking about the same thing.

"I don't think," they said at length, "our disagreement begins with equilibrium."

The sentence was addressed to the student.

Its invitation belonged elsewhere.

Anaxagoras understood it immediately.

"No," he replied. "It begins with what equilibrium is expected to explain."

A brief silence followed.

Not the uncomfortable silence of hesitation, but the altogether different silence in which thought advances more quickly than speech. Around them, conversations at neighbouring places had begun to diminish, less from deliberate curiosity than from the peculiar gravity exerted whenever two lines of reasoning approached one another closely enough to reveal whether they would converge or diverge.

The student looked between them again.

"So equilibrium is... insufficient?"

"Not insufficient," they answered.

"Specific," Anaxagoras said, almost simultaneously.

The coincidence passed without comment.

They glanced towards him.

Only briefly.

Long enough for something almost imperceptible to soften at the corner of their expression before their attention returned to the student.

"An equilibrium describes a condition," they continued. "What I question is whether the condition alone explains why that identity, rather than another indistinguishable from it in the present, exists at all."

Anaxagoras found himself answering before the student had formulated his next question.

"It does not."

The words surprised him almost as much as they appeared to surprise them.

Not because the concession was intellectually difficult. He had reached the same conclusion in the auditorium.

Because he had spoken it aloud.

Their eyes met his once more.

There was no triumph in their expression.

No satisfaction at agreement unexpectedly obtained.

If anything, the opposite.

A kind of careful restraint, as though they had become suddenly aware that continuing too far along the same line of thought might presume an intimacy the conversation had not yet earned.

It occurred to him then that they were exercising precisely the same caution with him that they extended to every unfamiliar scholar whose reasoning they respected.

The observation should have been reassuring.

For reasons he could not immediately identify, it was not.

"So... equilibrium still exists."

"Certainly," they answered.

"But it no longer explains identity."

"Precisely."

The student frowned.

"I'm not sure I understand the distinction."

Anaxagoras answered before he consciously decided to do so.

"An equilibrium may describe where a system has arrived."

He paused only long enough to ensure the student remained with him.

"It does not necessarily explain why this system, rather than another indistinguishable one, has arrived there."

The student's attention shifted immediately towards them.

A slight smile appeared.

"Yes," they said. "That is considerably more concise than I would have managed."

The remark drew another quiet laugh from the surrounding scholars.

Anaxagoras found himself unexpectedly dissatisfied with the compliment. 

He examined the reaction almost as soon as it arose.

There was no obvious reason to object to accurate attribution. His summary had, by his own assessment, been concise.

Nor had they diminished their own position by saying so.

The discomfort therefore required another explanation.

None immediately presented itself.

The student, meanwhile, had become visibly animated.

"Then..." He hesitated, searching for the correct formulation. "Would it be fair to say that Professor Anaxagoras describes stable configurations, while your theory describes the conditions under which those configurations become meaningful?"

Silence followed.

Not uncertain silence.

Evaluative silence.

Anaxagoras noticed, almost automatically, that they had not yet spoken.

Their attention remained upon the student rather than the question itself, as though determining precisely what he intended before deciding whether his conclusion followed.

Only once they appeared satisfied did they answer.

"I think," they said carefully, "that it would be fair to say our theories ask different questions."

They looked towards Anaxagoras then.

The movement was unhurried, entirely natural.

"I suspect Professor Anaxagoras would also agree that an answer need not become incorrect merely because another question proves equally fundamental."

He met their gaze.

For the first time that evening, the conversation had ceased to pass around them.

It included them.

"I would," he said.

The response came with surprising ease.

"My model was never intended to account for persistence through transformation."

"And mine," they replied, "was never intended to replace equilibrium."

The distinction, once spoken aloud, appeared almost embarrassingly straightforward.

The student leaned back in his chair with an expression that suggested an internal difficulty had quietly resolved itself.

"I think I understand."

"I doubt that," Anaxagoras said.

The student blinked.

He continued without alteration of tone.

"But I think you now know which question you are trying to answer."

Recognition spread slowly across the student's face.

"...Yes."

A faint smile returned.

"I suppose that's rather more valuable."

"It usually is."

The discussion dissolved as most discussions eventually did, not because it had reached agreement but because attention possessed limits that argument rarely acknowledged. A fresh question arose several places farther along the table concerning publication schedules; elsewhere someone had begun comparing today's lecture to a symposium held nearly a decade earlier. The student, relieved perhaps to have discovered that uncertainty itself could be productive, returned to his notebook with renewed determination.

It was not the conclusion that occupied him.

Nor even the unusual experience of finding his own work placed beside theirs without either diminishing the other.

It was the manner in which they had shared the discussion.

At no point had they attempted to establish precedence, to claim the stronger position, or to convert disagreement into victory. Their instinct had been, instead, to identify the point at which each account ceased to answer the same question, preserving what remained valid in both.

He realised, with faint surprise, that they had done precisely the same thing throughout the afternoon.

Not once had they argued against a person.

Only against an assumption.

The distinction was subtle.

It was also, he was beginning to suspect, entirely characteristic of them.

The conversation dispersed without quite ending.

Anaxagoras had only just resumed his meal when another figure appeared behind their chair.

She arrived with the ease peculiar to those who had long since abandoned any concern for ceremony, pausing only long enough to rest a hand lightly against the back of the empty seat beside them.

"So," she said, surveying the remains of the table with exaggerated solemnity, "have they finished interrogating you, or am I interrupting another examination?"

They looked up.

Something altered.

The change resisted immediate description. Their expression did not brighten so much as relax, the careful attentiveness that had governed every conversation throughout the evening yielding almost imperceptibly to recognition.

"Kira!"

"I escaped~"

"So I see..."

"Barely."

She lowered herself into the chair with an air of theatrical exhaustion.

"I made the mistake of standing too close to Professor Socrippe after dessert. I have spent the last quarter of an hour listening to the complete history of ceramic metaphysics."

They considered this.

"My condolences."

"I accepted them on your behalf."

A quiet laugh escaped them.

It was brief enough that much of the table continued speaking without noticing.

Anaxagoras did.

He realised, somewhat belatedly, that he had heard them laugh remarkably little.

Not because they lacked humour. Their words possessed an unexpectedly dry wit whenever precision permitted it. Rather because amusement, in their case, appeared governed by the same discipline that regulated everything else. It emerged only after genuine consideration, never as social obligation.

The observation should have ended there.

Instead, it acquired another.

The conversation itself had changed.

Not quite in subject... They continued discussing the symposium, the afternoon's lectures, the peculiar habits of senior academics who believed meals existed chiefly to prolong debate. Yet its movement differed fundamentally from every exchange he had witnessed that evening. There was no careful establishment of premises, no measured clarification of definitions before advancing to the next point. Entire assumptions passed between them without articulation, understood because they belonged not to the argument but to a familiarity accumulated elsewhere.

He found himself unable to follow every reference.

An unusual experience.

"You've eaten almost nothing."

The remark was delivered with such casual certainty that it scarcely resembled a question.

They glanced absently towards their plate.

"I've been occupied."

"So I've noticed."

Kira relieved them of an untouched piece of bread before continuing.

"You also forgot lunch."

"I postponed lunch."

"You forgot lunch."

"I remembered eventually."

"At quarter past five."

They made no attempt to dispute the correction.

Interesting.

There existed, it seemed, at least one person for whom their careful precision surrendered without negotiation.

The conclusion arrived with unexpected force.

Throughout the afternoon he had watched scholars challenge their definitions, contest their assumptions, even attempt to dismantle the argument they had spent months constructing. Every exchange had been met with the same composed patience, each objection examined before receiving an answer.

Here, none of that discipline appeared necessary.

Not because it had disappeared.

Because it was unnecessary between people who already understood one another.

The distinction was subtle.

It nevertheless altered something.

Until now he had encountered them only within the architecture of scholarship. Lecture halls. Offices. Manuscripts covered in annotations. Every memory he possessed of them belonged, in one way or another, to the practice of thinking.

It occurred to him, with faint surprise, that he knew almost nothing of the person who remained once thought ceased requiring defense.

And for reasons he could not satisfactorily explain, he found that absence... increasingly difficult to ignore.

-> next. :taglist: @starglitterz @kazumist @naraven @cozyunderworld @pinksaiyans @pearlm00n @your-sleeparalysisdem0n @francisnyx @qwnelisa @chessitune @leafythat @cursedneuvillette @hanakokunzz @nellqzz @ladymothbeth @chokifandom @yourfavouritecitizen @sugarlol12345 @aspiring-bookworm @kad0o @yourfavoritefreakyhan @mavuika-marquez @fellow-anime-weeb927 @beateater @bothsacredanddust @acrylicxu @average-scara-fan @pinkytoxichearts @amorismujica @luciliae @paleocarcharias @chuuya-san @https-seishu @feliju @duckydee-0 @dei-lilxc @eliawis @strawb3rri-bliss @khoiyyu @somatchajade @tremendoustragedybard @serena6728 @ameili @aominehaven @skeele @thelightofmylife @casualgalaxystrawberry @sigma-s-wife @nvlusdei @sc4r4luv @revverrist @moriiiiiiiiii @vxnusorbit @mikiziee @black-star1472 @believeing @itsreyningoutside @diejager @imcheshire @alephless @vxnna @tllamas @cherriee-ee @h-ypati-a @aasteraa