You know, maybe I saw this all wrong, but I thought Paul C was simply offering us an opportunity to indulge the more generous sides of our natures, and to simply compliment those who we think add something here with their writing (in many different ways: as gca experts, as humourists, as clear and thoughtful communicators etc).
I also think -- and again, I could be all wrong -- that there was an implied comment on all this ranking business, i.e. that rankings can be approached not in terms of better or (worse) worse, but in terms of praising architecture that we particularly like; focusing on the positive, if you like, and recognizing that, as with writing, there are many different aspects/styles/approaches that can be appreciated.
You'll rarely see me knocking a course or an architect, and rarely do I participate in ranking courses (partly because I don't know enough). It's not that I'm particularly nice; I just find that I'm happier not focussing on the negative.
Peter