I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no...
fork means action.

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

Whats your reasoning?

I don't believe that to be true at all!

Just saying..

the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool.  so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw ::  new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
 

yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome  

Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...

gosh thats what i try to say since this started steeling back is still steeling they should put more effort on finding the identity of the attacker then on steeling it back