That snippet in your Free Nodelet Settings might help.

<script type="text/javascript">
function xl (query) {
    var r = document.evaluate(query,document,null,XPathResult.ORDERED_
+NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE,null);
    var a = new Array;
    for ( var i=0 ; i < r.snapshotLength; i++ ) a.push(r.snapshotItem(
+i));
    return a;
}

var ohrwurm = xl("//em`[text()='I personally believe']");
for (var i in ohrwurm) {
    ohrwurm`[i].parentNode.innerHTML = ohrwurm`[i].parentNode.innerHTM
+L.replace('<em>I personally believe</em>','I guess');
}
</script>
[download]

That said, I'm with you in the perception of "I personally believe" as (according to my favorite online dictionary) something like a "catchy song", an earwig, something that goes on echoing in your head long after you've read it.

Don't take that too seriously. I'm Just Another Heck Parler.

...by means of a css setting...

...If I could block your top-level posts in Newest Nodes, I would

While current CSS selectors don't yet provide an optimal way of creating such selections, you could inject some JavaScript for that purpose. Here's an example that should do the trick in current Gecko browsers:

function xselect(xpath, root) {
  var doc = root ? root.ownerDocument : document;
  var res = [];
  var qry = doc.evaluate(xpath, root || document, null,
              XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);
  for (var i = 0, len = qry.snapshotLength; i < len; i++)
    res.push( qry.snapshotItem(i) );
  return res;
}

var pageID = xselect(
  './/table[@id="titlebar-bottom"]//span[@class="addlinks"]/a[1]/text(
+)'
)[0];
var pageContent = xselect('.//td[@class="main_content"][1]')[0];

if (pageID == "3628") { // Newest Nodes
  // ignore posts from these users
  [ 'Anonymous Monk',
    'foo',
    'bar'
  ].forEach(function(monkName) {
      xselect(
        './/td[2][starts-with(@class,"node-from-")]/a[text()="'
        + monkName + '"]/ancestor::tr[1]',
        pageContent
      ).forEach(function(row) {
          row.parentNode.removeChild(row);
        });
    });
}
[download]

Yes; it's the Steve Urkel of PerlMonks: an annoying combination of stupid catchphrases the writers consider popular yet have to invent ever more ridiculous situations to include. It's noise. It's repetitive. It adds nothing to the discussion. I can't block your pointless logorrhea without ignoring all of your posts.

(additional emphasis added by me.)

Ok, one last reply: (for I would have /msg'd instead, but it just wouldn't fit...) I accept everything you say, but it's simply not fair - wrt the emphasized points above:

1. in my case, it's one (stupid) catchphrase; far from being a "combination" whatever that may mean;
2. it doesn't subtract anything either; if I can cast what I want to say (anyway) in "IPB form" then I do, else I pass on;
3. dict(1) tells me:

   1 definition found
   
   From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
   
     logorrhea
          n : pathologically excessive (and often incoherent) talking
              [syn: {logomania}]
   lines 1-7/7 (END)
   [download]

   Whoa! Excessive! If only I take as an example the last post I did the damn thing, it's 582 bytes (rendered, transformed in plain text, .sig excluded) of which the catchphrase takes 20. To me, that's about 3% of the total, and we're talking about an exceedingly short post. You must have a fairly strange notion of the word "excessive..."

I get back to oblivion now!

To me, that's about 3% of the total, and we're talking about an exceedingly short post.

... times how many posts in the past several months? That's like saying littering isn't so bad because you only throw one candy wrapper in the park (every time you walk by).