Although we may not like persons who just let the time run out, I personally have no problem with it.  They are not breaking any rule.  We should be more outraged by those persons who have computers helping them or other persons helping them or who set up boards and manipulate pieces on those boards to figure out their next move.  I do none of this.  I only look at the position on the chess.com screen and play it myself.  I can understand that when people are playing as many as 12 games at a time and something comes up, they could very easily run out of time.  If others find it too unpleasant to resign, so be it.  We should be thankful that at least they provide us with a game of chess that we would otherwise not have.  They could do the same thing in an over-the-board tournament as well.  You should be grateful that at least you win the game.  I'm very grateful for every game, whether I win or lose.

Now, are these people who have gotten losing positions, or is the game still in contention?  If there's no clear winner yet, and tons of interesting lines left to explore, then it must just be a sign of laziness, irresponsibility, or some kind of intervening real-life situation that we on the other end of the board obviously have no control over.  Can't really argue with any of those, right?  Of course, we don't have to, because this site disincentivizes that behavior by permanently displaying a user's timeout tally on their chess page and restricting those users who have accrued too many timeouts from playing in tournaments.

And then there are those who've already lost and can simply bear neither the ignominy of resignation nor the humiliation of being made to suffer mate.  If, despite coming here in the first place, they simply lack the maturity and integrity to actually play real chess, then once again, the burden of patience is on us to accommodate their futile behavior, and that's that.  At the end of the day, though, I'm with the Great American Bard on this one: any such fool has my pity!