I was thinking the same thing a few weeks ago...then I realized the problem: If you have a 16.67ms response time, and a 60Hz refresh rate, then it's possible that your monitor NEVER displays the right picture -- the pixels will always be in "transition" between 2 frames...and by the time they get to displaying a frame, it's time to start the transition to the next frame. Of course, if the "16ms" is black to white, and most transitions are grey-to-grey (ie: they'd happen faster), then most of the time things will look fine. So, I'm thinking, for your eyes, maybe it's best if the pixels look right "most" of the time -- ie: during the 16.67ms each frame is displayed (@60Hz), you want your eyes to see the right image for at least 16.67/2 ms. So, if you've got an 8ms response time or better, you should be all good for sure in every situation. Let me finish, though, by saying I've got a 3 year old dell Ultrasharp 1703...and I think it's quoted response time is 25ms, and I've never picked up on any ghosting. So, I might have "slow eyes" or something...or maybe I just don't deal much with fast moving images. But I'd imagine, then, that 16ms is pretty good for most people, and 8ms response times at 60Hz ought to be just about perfect. I'd like to see some "blind" tests on these guys who claim to need a 2ms response time....can they really tell the difference between an 8ms and a 1ms monitor?