``With respect to Proposal #2, an ABSTAIN vote is equivalent to a NO vote thereby reducing the chance of passage. We urge you to vote FOR all proposals.``

All they are saying is that if you choose to abstain, the way the votes are counted, the abstain will be counted as a no. Think of it this way: they are looking for an endorsement/vote of confidence. If you abstain, you are not giving an endorsement/vote of confidence. So it`s considered a ``no``.

As for failing to vote at all, I believe it is as suggested by others and your (lack of voted) shares are considered a ``yes``. But, in probably overthinking this, considering this vote appears to be one seeking an endorsement/vote of confidence, it occurs to me that one of three things could be going on:

1) The customary thing where the shares not voted go the way of the company`s desires.

2) Based on the ``endorsement/vote of confidence`` issue, shares not voted do not represent a endorsement/vote of confidence, and are considered ``no`s``.

3) Again based on the ``endorsement/vote of confidence`` issue, shares not voted are not counted.

While I suppose any of the three are possible, I`m leaning to #2 or 3. Have they ever pushed SO hard for a yes vote on anything? Or ever made it sound so dire and essential?

This raises other questions. Are they less confident that the ``friendly investors`` will vote their way? (Hence the plea to retail shareholders)? I`ll be posting more touching on this, as I publicly try to sort my way through all this (seeking replies of substance to help me, as possible, to figure out WTF is/may be going on).

SGE