(Now that I have kind of outed myself, I feel kind not-so-pseudo.)

To state it more bluntly, assumptions about “where one is going” or “what motivates a particular argument” may actually hinder rather than faciliate a meaningful relationship. Secondly, a strict reading of Buber (which you seem to come pretty close to) by definition precludes any communication that is not face to face as generative of an I-Thou relationship, be it with the “real” name of the individual or not, so either way we’re doomed from the get-go.

I am not sure that this problem is solved by simply knowing my name or even knowing my background. If anything, it causes one to err more than bring greater clarity to a conversation because it allows you to make assumptions about what you think you know about that person, how to categorize and label them, and whether or not you are predisposed to accept what they have to say or not depending on your prior relationship with them. I think that it also assumes a relevance of such information when it most definitely is not relevant.
I am not sure what you mean about feigning a disembodied message. The problems in communication you describe seem to be problems with blogging, whether with named or unnamed interlocutors. I am not sure that being unnamed changes the nature of the relevant communication in any demonstrable way.
FWIW, I don’t know Mark Brown and he doesn’t know me. He may know my name, we may have even crossed paths virtually or irl, but that doesn’t make him know me any more than you do.
Ultimately, I have three concerns with your insistence on dealing with named figures. (I worry that my concerns point in contradictory directions, though.) First, I think that it rests on an over-importance of the notion of “individual,” as if knowing about that individual explains in some direct way the content of their work. This is the criticism that Barthes makes about the centrality of the author as mistaken. Second, it assumes that an “authentic” I-Thou relationship is a value which is more important than the content of the discussion. While I can see its value, I am not convinced that this should be the primary goal of intellectual exchanges, though perhaps you could spell out more what you think such a relationship actually looks like. Third, I am not convinced of the assumption that such a relationship can only be achieved on the basis of, in my view, completely arbitrary sharing of biographical details. I like to think that I have had numerous valuable, insightful, and charitable discussions with people that I know little to nothing about personally. As I argued in the original post above, I think that these elements can actually impede true exchanges by getting the “self” involved with impure motives in a way that pseudonymity helps to check against.

That is in part why blogging is so danged frustrating for folks like me (and Dan Peterson for instance) who engage sardonic asides and sarcasm as a mean of communication and humor. It just doesn’t come thru easily.

The Rings of Gyges, as you’re well aware, is the question of whether there are any moral constraints where one remains hidden and anonymous. Mark may know who the heck you are — I don’t. I have a hard putting your messages into context as a result