i use a 21" trinitron at 1600x1200 @ 85 hz, at that those settings all looks very nice to me and i have no complaints. at 75hz i can notice a little flicker when dysplaying complex meshes and/or fine grids but its nothing more than a minor anoyance. drop just 3hz to 72hz and i will get a headache from looking at the screen. at 60hz, within moments i start screaming about how what idiots nvidia are and how they will never be able to sell video cards if we all go blind trying to play games in 2000 and xp with their default driver settings. then i go track down one of the many fixes for it that i generaly forget to install untell i subject myself to the torture for a moment (if i lost you there its becuase you dont game in xp or 2000 or you dont have very sensitive eyes when it comes to screen flicker, either way trust me its no fun for us who do). as for fps, under 25fps is extreemly unplesent, 35fps is slighty anoying and over 40fps i dont i can tell any difference. but like other have said its all a rather subjective thing. i find people running their monitors at 60hz all the time and they dont complain one bit, it all depends on what works for you.
also i have some issues with the articals AnAndAustin linked that i would like to point out:
"I must stress the fact again that we live in an infinite world where information is continuously streamed to us."
aparetnty the partical/wave theory of light is nonsence and the understanding that any given light, relitive to its color, has a specific freqency is right out.
"Tell me the image on the screen is more clear, more presise than the image of the TV or the monitor itself. You can't, that's why the more frames per second, the better, and the closer to reality it really appears to us."
tell me a pound of bricks is heavier than a pound of feathers. you can't, thats why [insert point you would like to prove here] is true! or more to the point, would 10,000lb of bricks feel any heaver or lighter than 50,000 pounds of feathers if you tred to lift each one? of course not, your not going anywhere with either of them, they are both way out of your leauge.
anyway those may seem like small points in comparison to that articles but when it comes down to it they are the basis for the intier argument and repeated constantly thoughout the artical to "prove" a point that is simply not true. also there is the general lack of aprecation for modren physics that the author lacks as demonstrated here:
"Regardless of any objects speed, it maintains a fixed position in space time."
einstein would role in his grave if he heard that. normaly things travel on path though space-time, mantaing a fixed position would be quite a trick.
"With exact frames, those without blur, each pixel, each object is exactly where it should be in the set space and time."
ill bet werner heisenberg wishes he were alive today to ask this guy how he comes to know such things. i sure woudnt mind knowing how such things are possable.
so in conclusion,the arcticles intertaining and have some valid points in them but they also have serious errors as mentioned above and the author fails to present any scientific evedence to back his claims. i realy cannot consider them a good sorce of information. also, i am still looking forward to understanding how pushing more fps than your refresh rate can do you any good at all. the articles with all the retorical b.s. claiming the more fps the beter even conseded the point that the refresh rate is still the determining factor. even BFG10K tends to agree with for the most part asside from the bit about better mouse sensitivity and responsiveness wich i am hopeing to get an explanation for as i am compleately lost to the idea.