Oh, alright then. Let's dissect your post.
"I've been noticing that the effectiveness of this spell is incredible. The usefullness of the spell is almost beyond all the others."
Okay. First sentence is an empty statement, for rhetorical effect. Second sentence, complete opinion, once again for rhetorical effect.
"It can instantly render any communer almost completely useless."
Yes. Just as silence can render most casters useless. Or, frankly, a lack of good equipment renders melees useless.
"Not only that but the incredible success rate of it alone is amazing. It has the ability to land through -100+ mal saves on the first or second attempt."
Yes. All spells have a chance to land on the first attempt, even if you have -213532235234 saves.
"Once a communer is disconnected from their god(dess) its not exactly hard to defeat them in a fight."
Yes. The nice thing about communers, however, is that they are not exactly easy to kill, even when blasphemied, due to protective shielding. Unless they are terrible runners. Qclasses aside, there are only TWO ways blasphemy can land. Both, shamans and clerics, are communers themselves. Would you care at all to discuss the balance purposes behind blasphemy, the PK mechanics of it, and how blasphemy lands/affects each different race/class differently?
"To clarify that I am not complaining; I do not have a communer. I was not blasphemied, or was I affected by it in some way recently."
Okay. So you stopped getting blasphemied on communers, but now that you've started playing non-communers, you've noticed it landing lots. Sure.
"I've just noticed it lands easily on everyone regardless of saves."
Okay. Could you give us some figures? Say, if a person is at X amount of saves, on average, how many casts does it take to land blasphemy?
It seems to me, that your entire post is heavy on rhetoric, and light on actual facts or balance discussions. It can be summarized up, I think, like this: "Blasphemy lands too easily on everyone. It completely screws over communers. It needs to be toned down. And I haven't been playing a communer who's been getting blasphemied recently: that makes my argument have more credibility."
I'm sorry, but where are the facts? The trials? A look at the class vs class balance, and more. It's an out and out complaint, backed by very sketchy data; a classical set of signals for someone who's recently been given a lot of problems by a certain race/class.
More and more, lately, I've been seeing complaints about everything related to evil clerics. Some of it, I agree with. Some of it, I don't. But when I'm hearing everything from complaints about minister lag, to path damage, to now blasphemy on path/path maledictions, I seriously am sensing that a lot of these posts lack any real credibility behind them at all.
Why not do this? Go get a certain amount of saves, preferably as an evil character. Ask a shaman to fight you, spamming nothing but blasphemy, or an evil cleric you trust (and yes, these are both findable) to fight you, spamming path. Run tests. Get us facts and figures, instead of anecdotes which are, by their very nature, out of the ordinary.
It isn't your credibility which makes your post lack a bit of credibility. It is your posts itself that lacks credibility; your following post simply highlighted it a bit.
As it stands, any post which simply says, in a nutshell, "So and so is overpowered, it lands with so and so ease", holds very little credibility. Give us facts and figures. Give us numbers. Give us class v class balance discussions.
Don't give us rhetoric about rare exceptions.