Indeed, I have yet to find a competitive or “old school” runner who supports the kind of results keeping, tied to chip timing, we see here. Personally, you're right, I know what I ran and that's what really matters. Of course, I get strange looks if I say I was 142nd at Chicago and someone looks it up and finds me 143rd but people who really care usually get it when I point out the cause of the discrepancy. Everyone understands 142nd across the finish line is 142nd, very few can even comprehend the idea that 142nd across the finish line is actually 143rd.
As for race directors, it seems to be easier for them to pass along an additional cost than to find the volunteers to do manual timing. I'd be curious, though. Over 3000 runners at Al's Run paid the $5 timing surcharge. Did the timing system actually cost over $15,000? If so, wouldn't it be cheaper to pay 10-20 people for an hour or so of work plus one a little more to enter the results into a computer?