>>75850113i am the anon that said
>>75847766, i am still busy, so it still takes me a while to respond. and since i'm busy, i don't have much time to do the kind of independent research that the reverse image search would have resulted in. usually, reverse image search is fairly simple, and leads to some website or forum that has more information about the image, if not the source of the image itself. i wouldn't consider myself all that new to using that function, but if you want to consider me a retard for not being able to work it in this instance, go ahead i suppose, but i did already try the reverse image search when i posted the original question. to avoid encouraging more "uncomfy" interactions, i'm just going to say thank you for the replies, even if they didn't ultimately help me in the way i had hoped, and otherwise, i'll second the sentiment of
>>75850450. when i get more free time, hopefully by the end of the week, i'll see if i can't do a deeper dive into it to find the source myself. sorry for causing any kind of commotion.
