As near as I can figure out, you don't like it an you don't like it because

a) it can be used as a "style decoy";

b) it can be used to protect something not worthy of being protected.

You claim such people tend to be the very same people who have nothing to say for themselves.

I'm told George Eliot would agree.  If he were alive.  I was told this by B. Traven of course.

But I am curious surely the lack of your personal stamp allows the greatness of your piece to speak for itself, without having to add "Picasso?"  Surely there are too many cases where the stamp is the only value?  And isn't that a bad thing?

Adding your name just sometimes seems like such a bad idea, to me.

But what do I know?

Value what is said, and not who said it.  It's particularly difficult to get by who said it as you so bring your prior baggage to the game.  Anonymity should, sometimes, be cherished.

Basically, you're irritated because i disagree with you. 

'Prior baggage" and "game" were simple metaphors and I'm sorry that I had assumed that I wouldn't have to explain them. 

I'm arguing you're straightforwardly wrong.

a) I've pointed out clear cases where certain amounts of anonymity were required or desired.  The fact that you now know a little more about those people is really irrelevant to the case that anonymity can be valuable.

b) I'm trying to point out to you - though clearly unsuccessfully - that some people abuse their name.  The art I linked to would be in trash cans if not for the signature of the particular artists on them.

c) Knowing some background (prior baggage) about who is saying what necessarily colours how you read what that person now is saying.  If you are prone to dislike or like someone, you will be prone to colour how you value what that person is saying, regardless, to an extent, of what was said.

d) Anonymity can be very freeing.   Some are willing to discuss aspects of their lives that they otherwise wouldn't be willing to share.  Certainly, I did this on the fray.  There were times that the fray, I'd argue, produced some particularly fine moments, and yet, it was built on anonymity.

The downside of anonymity is that some feel free to take liberties in how they respond.  The freedom that anonymity can bring certainly can be abused.  This was true on the fray as well.  To some extent you are using this freedom here in your responses to me.  I'm confident you wouldn't so respond in person.