"Spite checking" vs. winning on time?

Does this sound rediculous to anyone else - "RESIGN LOST GAMES is good sportsmanship...don't spite check to win on time."  Mind you, I was up a rook after 11 moves, with 10 seconds left on my side and made a conscious decision to sacrifice to control the clock.  Is winning on time and forcing moves via check any 'less honorable' than winning in other ways considering part of the strategy with 1 minute games is to utilize the clock most efficiently?  Is there an invisible asterick next to my result of "won" that I don't know about?  Anyways, here is the relevant 1 minute game and I'm curious as to other's thoughts.

Seems fine (no asterisk needed) to me for several reasons:

i) Bullet time controls are all about race-condition monkey business. If you expected some lofty standard of chess + ethics at this time control, you probably need a hug and a warm beverage.

ii) Most "actual" sportsman-worthy venues (rated OTB tournaments) enforce a time-delay policy on clocks so that spite-checking and other run-the-clock tricks don't work so well. 

iii) Finally => the clock is a piece ... you "earned" your extra time and how you choose to exploit your opponent's "lack" of it is completely within the rules.

You  might even get to learn a few new fascinating swear word combinations from a decidedly warm-spirited opponent ... so there's an educational benefit to this as well.

Players who voluntarily play bullet chess and then complain about being run out of time are like men who go to a brothel and then complain they caught something.

Great responses, guys - thanks!  Regarding the learning of swear word combinations, it did take me a moment to figure out "GFY."  The kids today are so creative.

+Infinity :)

This is how 1 minute chess is played.  If you did not sacrifice to win on time then you don't understand bullet chess and you'd need to find a different time control.