Ok, first of all, nympho?  Auto-correct?

I took a course on writing years ago & they pushed the idea of simplifying your writing by removing superfluous commas.  They also suggested that using words like "superfluous" was unnecessary when a word like do.  So I would agree with mempho regarding the sparing use of commas.

I agree with Dave about editing. Yes, of course that was an auto-correct; you know I'm a no-nonsense kind of poster.

... "They also suggested that using words like "superfluous" was unnecessary when a word like unnecessary will do."

It sure would be nice if this forum allowed edits like every other forum on the net.

Due to his incredible knowledge of grammar terms (nonrestrictive apposition - holy crap!), I will surrender the point to mempho, and concede the fact that the commas Paul located for you in his first post are optional. That being said, I would definitely put them in myself; I guess it's just personal preference.

Now if you look at the first two sentences in Paul's first post, you can see incorrect usage of a commas (sorry Paul). 

Peachy is wrong of course. Maybe he meant a clause rather than a sentence? We'll probably never know. But sometimes commas are absolutely required, as nympho pointed out above. 

It's the same punctuation mark, but we approach it in different ways. In English, a comma is a cut: <em>snip</em>! A perfectly-structured sentence in English doesn't need a comma at all. Commas show that we've needed to chop up the sentence.

I realise other languages use commas to parse and structure the sentence, but it simply doesn't work that way in English. :) It's just different thnking.