>>77034815Anything that's more than 5 years old and not totally obscure will probably already have consensus or acknowledgement of inspiration searchable somewhere on the internet, and then there's obviously anything 2009 at the most recent or 1997 at the longest, which really shouldn't be much of a challenge if this is as common as you believe.
Finding excuses to not look for supporting evidence like I provided, attacking my imagined character and the tone of my points aren't an argument, anon, they're a desperate attempt to have the last word without adding anything of substance.
Perhaps you are the one who should be letting it go? :^)
