Never understood that argument...”Q” is supposedly anonymous right? (Although we know that there have been 2-3 “Q’s” based on writing style...most likely Fredrick Brennan then Jim Watkins and Ron Watkins). Therefore Q is “Q-ANON(ymous)” Conversely Q “followers” are mostly not “anon”-ymous, so it was confusing for the media/Comcast! ;-)
It was confusing to me as well — though, I was familiar with the anon & 4-chan (or 2-chan, 8-chan) terms from a while ago. I got the impression that Q was supposed to be some all-knowing insider, and the rest were simply groups of hackers and/or dark-web types.
My recreational imagination is pretty much committed to music where I truly disconnect from reality.
The original Q postings were while Q was an insider in the Trump campaign. Then right after the inauguration, there was a subtle but noticeable shift in the postings and that tells me that the person was out of the loop. A good guess would be in a position in an agency outside of the White House and the inner circle, or back to civilian life. Of course “Q” could have Flynn, since he was at the Q level while head of MIL Intel and also as NSA. It may not have been him typing at the keyboard but feeding info of what to post. He resigned a few weeks after the inauguration. So that timing matches the shift from what I’ll call Q period 1 to 2. Q2 - N were all just taking wild guesses that any political wonk could do. No real substance or intel. Anyone who kept following from Q2 on showed they had little to no discernment and really did earn the tag Qtard.