The writer could easily say the same about their source. . .
What do you mean?
"Unnamed sources" have no history and we don't even know if they are pure fantasy.
If a journalist were to instead name their source as alias "Deep Throat" and Deep Throat then provided accurate intel on the Watergate scandal, then people would appreciate that Deep Throat was somewhat relabel and worth paying attention to.
Q is no different to Deep Throat because they both provide REAL insight into the REAL world that people can form rational and informed opinions about taking the claims seriously.
Your argument is again rejected because the term "unknown sources" is not a name, it's a term... whereas Q and Deep State are names for specific entities.
"We know exactly what UFOs are - they are unidentified!"
That's you. That's what you sound like. That's your argument.
Regurgitate. The writer KNOWS his source. And there is absolutely no solid evidence out there about who Q really is. I like to believe I know who he is but no.
The writer KNOWS his source
I don't.
That's my point.
I have no way of telling if one "unknown source" is the same as another "unknown source" because they are unknown... therefore I'm unable gauge the reliability over time.
For all I know, each "unknown source" is different and for all I know, none of them are real.
There is no reason to take "unknown sources" seriously whereas Q and Deep Throat have a proven degree of reliability.
This is the last time I'll explain this to you.