You're trying to have it both ways. This is what you said before:
Can you not see that if you have something like Sad Puppies, where a lot of books are suddenly talked about, a bunch of people will go and review those same books and therefore inflate the ratings somewhat?
Do you really expect us to believe that there was no discussion whatsoever of books under consideration for Hugo nominees until the Puppies came along? Or that such discussion was only limited to Puppy-favored books? If there is a bias which lifts the rankings of prospective nominees, then the bias would occur during every nomination period and for every prospective book. All data points in the graph would be subject to the same effect.
Seriously? It appears I do have to explain it to you then. 
The puppies discussion of which books should get a Hugo started in January. If you are comparing this against something like a discussion on HLP over which book should get the nomination, you are completely wrong for several reasons.
Firstly, they quickly decided on a slate, a set of books they wanted to nominate. The Hugo nominations have typically been very personal. Each person votes for the books they personally enjoyed. Slate voting is very new, that's why it was effective this year. You don't get this sort of thing on HLP. We don't narrow down the conversation over which books are good here, if anything the list of good books would get longer with the thread.
Secondly, you've failed to consider that the Sad and Rabid puppies are activists. Is it really so hard to believe that a bunch of people who would spend months choosing and lobbying for a certain set of books would be more likely to read those books? And having read them would be more likely to review them on Amazon? Can you really not understand that people who think that books they like are being deliberately excluded from the publicity that a Hugo award would give them to the degree that they would form an organisation dedicated to fixing it, might also do other things to increase the readership of those books?
I'm not even claiming that it was deliberate, it may actually have been, but even organically if you tell a bunch of Sci-Fi fans to concentrate on a certain set of books, I would be very surprised if you didn't see more of them buying those books, and more of them reviewing those books. Can you really not see how that would be different to a discussion on HLP where maybe one or two people might go out and buy a heavily recommended book and where it's likely that no one would bother to review it?
You completely failed to address the point I made, which is that if there is any boost to book reviews caused by discussion of books under consideration for Hugo nominations, it is not unique to the Puppies nor is it unique to this year.
(And as a reminder, here is my originally stated argument, lest it be lost in the noise. I note that you have not been able to rebut a single one of these points.
1. The Castalia House graph indicates that Puppies works, as measured by Amazon reviews, are more highly rated than Hugo winners of recent years.
2. Since lower-rated works of the past were not given No Award, the Puppies works do not merit No Award either.
3. Thus any voter who chose No Award for a Puppies work did not do so on the basis of merit.
4. Ergo, your
your claim that "it's probable that most of the people involved don't think they were a deserving author" and
also "I think it's very likely that a lot of people knew the background for the slate and did the very human thing of voting "No Award" because they felt that none of those books deserved the prize they were up for." is refuted.
You've been attacking point #1, claiming that the higher ratings for Puppies works are undeserved or illegitimate.)
Again, by focusing on the fact that Puppies are discussing the books they want to nominate, you are ignoring the fact that everybody else is also discussing the books they want to nominate. It doesn't happen all in one place like on HLP, but it happens on the various author and sci-fi interest blogs. And proposing or recommending slates is not new.
Look at all the award pimpage John Scalzi has done, for example.
You're using a very strange argument by saying that the Sad and Rabid Puppies are more likely to read the books and encourage others to read them also. Isn't that what fans do? And the Hugo awards are supposed to represent all of fandom. More importantly, the more people read and review the books, the more accurately the Amazon ratings reflect the quality of those books. Anyone who reads a book can post a review of it, whether Puppy or otherwise.
You're also repeatedly using the bizarre rhetorical trick of implying that I only disagree with your point because I don't understand it. On the contrary, I understand your point perfectly. It's just wrong.
Let's do a thought experiment and toss out the entire Puppies contingent, which Vox Day estimates at 1015, comprised of 565 Rabids and 450 Sads. Let's further assume that they all voted for Toni Weisskopf (which is highly unlikely as there were 166 votes for Vox Day in that category). 1216 minus 1015 is 201 which is still more than Patrick Nielsen Hayden got. And yet she was still swamped by the 2496 votes for No Award.
That's a really stupid thought experiment though. Controversial issues get more attention than non-controversial issues. You're claiming that the numbers mean something they quite obviously don't. In the years you have claimed mean something, comparatively fewer people even cared about who won the Best Editor vote.
Toni Weisskopf got 1,216 first-line #1 votes. Arguably the most of any editor in the history of the Hugo awards.
Sheila Gilbert got 754 first-line #1 votes. Again, second only to Toni, arguably the most of any editor in the history of the Hugo awards.
By contrast, Patrick-Nielsen Hayden won a Best Editor Hugo in 2010, with just 140 first-line #1 votes.
So since there were only 5 nominees then the total first line votes for all 5 candidates would presumably be somewhere around 1,000. Less than Toni Weisskopf got. Surely you can see that this alone means that the numbers by themselves mean nothing. Only their proportions matter.
I'm not making any value judgement about whether Toni Weisskopf is better than Patrick-Nielsen Hayden, or to what degree. I'm saying that Toni Weisskopf enjoys strong support that cannot be explained by the Puppy contingent alone. Consider that she received 1308 second-line votes as well. No Award is supposed to be used if there is nobody worthy on the ballot. That was not the case here. 2496 voters put politics over principle.
Goober's analysis is meaningless, as is your supposed evidence, because it does not have to indicate what Goober or you want it to indicate. Goober's analysis, without citing any methodology to its apportionment that would make it worthwhile in the first place (as was pointed out immediately, did you miss that?), offers up a meaningless statistic that could have to do with as much random chance, writer skill, and voter demographics as with some kind of conspiracy or clique. The fact that (according to Goober, anyways) the Hugo only goes right a small percentage of the time does not prove that the process is politicized in itself. It is suggestive, but it can also suggest other possibilities; perhaps the genre skews left itself, perhaps the Hugo voters skew left based on where it's held, perhaps they skew left for some other reason. Perhaps the right-wingers are all doing techno-thrillers or historical fiction or fantasy. Lord knows Clancy could be pretty right-wing at times.
Yeah, I did notice Joshua's reply to that. I suspect even if Mike Glyer (not me, I remind you) explained his methodology, you still wouldn't be satisfied. One can always rationalize away evidence that threatens one's perspective. At least you admitted that it was suggestive.
Anyway, this may be my last word on the subject since I'll be away for the next three days. I've pointed out two separate and totally independent metrics (Amazon reviews and statistical representation) that indicate, as the Puppies claim, that the Hugo awards do not reflect all of fandom. I would encourage all independent observers to get their facts from the statements of the people involved, or from the numbers, not from spin-doctoring or speculation.
