Roland, over at ESWN, reports on how the term "Laozi" 老子  is sometimes used colloquially to refer to "wuo" 我.  Laozi is, of course, the name of the legendary author of the Daodejing.  So, confusion can be created when the informal colloquialism is used, and Roland links to an amusing example of this.

I was not aware of this usage, perhaps because I hang around academic types who tend to use more formal language around me.  But it makes a certain sense.  "Lao" is often used to refer to an individual informally: Lao Li or Lao Yang or the like.  Turning it back on "I" or "me" – in the general sense of Laozi or "old one" – is a logical extension. 

But I am less interested in the linguistics here (however interesting that may be).  Philosophically there is something appropriate about Laozi meaning "me."  I am one of those who agrees with the notion that Laozi is not a real historical person:

Laozi is certainly a legend, and a potent one at that.  And the beauty and wisdom of the Daodejing, and other Daoist texts, do not depend upon the actual historical existence of a man called "Laozi."  Indeed, I think that if we consider the Daodejing, and think about the possibility that the individual reader of the text is, simultaneously, the author of the text (i.e. "I" am "Laozi" when I read the text), that new interpretive possibilities arise.

The Daodejing is meant to inspire a certain self-reflection.  It causes the reader to think about his or her place in Way; and it encourages him or her to envision the most appropriate manner to move through Way.  These are highly personalized conceptions.  My place in Way is not yours; and your path through Way is not mine.  It's in that sense that each of us is the author of our own unique experience in and through Way.  "I" am "Laozi."