"I sort of question the Harry Potter selection. I assume that was an attempt by the Hugo committee to remain relevant to the tween generation."
"boy oh boy does the Hugo committee love it some Lois McMaster Bujold. Four Hugos: that’s as many as Heinlein, twice as many as LeGuin or Asimov, and as much as Herbert, Bester, Dick and Brunner put together. Also exactly four more than Samuel Delaney, Ray Bradbury, Octavia Butler, Johnathan Lethem, Douglas Adams, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch or China Mieville, to name a few at random. What gives?"
"It must have been slim pickings for the Hugo committee when Robert Sawyer‘s book Hominids took science fiction’s big prize in 2003."
"Maybe the Hugo committee that year was full of frustrated Furries."
Every single one of those comments sounds to me that the writer thinks that the Hugos are selected by a small secret jury, not by an open nomination and election process in which anyone who wants to buy a WSFS membership can participate. And these are just the easy comments to find. I admit that I can't find the original comment that set me off (it was years ago), but that doesn't mean it wasn't made, just that it's buried in the mass of data that is The Interwebz. Indeed, there's more than a passing chance that the original comment is gone entirely.
I really dislike being accused of lying. If I hadn't seen the "The Committee Must Withdraw that Hugo" comment in the first place, it would never have stuck in my head the way it has. And being accused of having made things like this up makes me more prone to speak in footnotes than I already do. If any of you think that I digress too much and provide Too Much Detail, it's accusations that I'm lying about things that are one of the prods to me being that way.