Pretty funny stuff. Why would anyone take Rolling Stone's list seriously when its made up of vocalists who are known (name-wise atleast), to almost everyone who subscribes to that magazine in the first place? Its all self-gratifying BS akin to the act of masterbation.
Anywayz, some comments-
1. Thom might get on some top 100 list of singers somewhere depending on the criteria involved, but I don't think it really works here considering the audience that RS usually caters to. He's not abysmal vocally, but neither is he everyone's cup of tea. I suppose he was included for sake of acknowledging the current British music scene.
2. The best way to fight a fanboy is to give them an actual example of an artist who is superior to their established idol. If they continue to bitch afterwards, then just ignore them.
3. Mike Patton's acclaimed "versatility" as a vocalist is a bit too hyped for its own good. What about Devin Townsend, Varg Vikernes, Daniel Gildenlow, Mikael Akerfeldt, Darroh Sudderth, and countless other damned-good singers who have done impressive work of their own?