consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer What is IPv6? I've never heard of it, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here.
I hope you never serve on a jury. The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'
Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far?
Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.
If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.
Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.
In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent. You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works. Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a
negative universal, existential negative.
At the functional level, anti-fork vs. DGAF is a distinction without a difference. That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.