Valid, and not really a rant - no need to apologise. :)
From a purely aesthetics viewpoint, no one is going to convince me not to embrace the Shard I'm afraid. I'm as drawn to the very big, very pointy building as I am to Tower Bridge, and the scale doesn't bother me. In a sense I think the dwarfing argument would be more persuasive (to me anyway) if we're talking about one big pointy thing brazenly trying to outscale other existing little pointy things. But instead we're talking about a dome, an elongated pyramid, two bridge towers, other irregular shapes at More London etc... and my view - shared by many I'm sure - is that it all comes together rather nicely. I like contrasts, dynamism, and I find the idea of what awaits us architecturally as exciting as the view of the Huang Pu River in Shanghai - with the staunchly colonial Bund on one bank and the irreverent sci-fi looking Pudong on the other.
But as for social divisions and what the Shard will come to symbolise in these rather wretched times, well, that's another matter, and I've already acknowleged that the Guardian piece has given me much to think about.
(Was St Paul's ever considered a symbol of excesses during its various stages of reconstruction? Was it ever disparaged and hated by the masses because of its scale? Dunno... Anyone care to enlighten?)