Somebody is upset that they weren't good enough for the debate team in high school. But still proving that they aren't good enough.
"If you change the rule as I'm suggesting then you would 'lose on time'."
Since you imagine in your mind that the case that does not exist actually does exist, your arguments immediately become irrelevant. That you cling so dearly to such inanity only shows your inability to reason.
Point made, rebuttal answered. HAND.
Are you serious? If you change the rule, the argument against the rule doesn't make sense. You evaluate a rule change by imagining what it would be like if the rule was changed. What you're doing is imagining what it would be like if the rule wasn't changed, which is irrelevant to the current discussion. I'm sorry that you're not able to understand this, but don't feel bad. You've made yourself look a little silly, but that's not so bad, is it?
An upside-down Rook representing a Rook is ridiculous. It's just convenience when a set doesn't have two Queens and at least one Rook is off the board. Any player who whishes to promotes to a Rook yet puts it on the board upside-down is as much an idiot as if someone turned the Rooks upside down and placed their knights on their sides to start the game.
As for the losing on time issue, there has still been no sensible refutation to the claim that if neither player deserves to win then a draw is the obvious result. Claiming that a player who loses on time deserves to lose therefore their opponent deserves to win is just a typically flawed one-way implication. If a player has no mating material then they do not deserve to win, irrespective of their opponent's situation.
If there isn't an extra set of queens, and no available queen within reach (i.e. maybe next board over also traded queens), then the correct procedure is to stop the clock, summon a director, and inform the director that you need a White/Black Queen on board (whatever board number you are). Director gets you a Queen (or third Knight, third Bishop, or third Rook), brings it to your table, your move is already declared and therefore must be played (otherwise the stopping of the clock would be deemed cheating to gain time), and you proceed to hit the clock so that your opponent's time begins.
That sounds sensible enough though it doesn't account for the fact an upside-down Rook counts as a Rook! Ok, it's not legal as a Queen, but seriously, is there really such a rule that basically says you can place a Rook upside-down and it is legal as a Rook?!