Well, I'm getting bored of this Socratic method and it doesn't seem to help at all, it just frustrates people and makes debating harder, so I am going to give you an actual answer (hint: YOU COULD TRY THIS TOO SOMETIME.)
I have not read Correia's books but I find that this does not in any way detract from my arguments. You see, I have never voted in the Hugo awards and therefore I don't think that I actually need to read all the nomimees. If I was planning to go to the Hugos and vote I might as well read up on recent books so that I could actually say which of them I like the most (Which is not the same as which is the best one. Seeing as this would merely be fan favourites vote rather than an actual competetion with judges who look at things from a neutral point of view.) but as I'm not going in the foreseeable future I don't have to read every damn scifi-book that comes out this year.
Meanwhile, my beef with the Puppies is their politization of the awards and even if I had read all their books and loved them I would still hate this foul play.
See? Actual answer that does not pretend that I have no memory beyond the last 5 seconds.