Why is it disgusting?? Why should Time Warner eat the cost?? Because they are left wing? Is that enough reason?
They should eat the cost because those floods just happened. It was a force of nature. No one was being negligent or frivilous. Accidents of this type just happen and the owner eats the cost. They own the boxes. Same as if a flood had carried away a rental house. The renter would not pay for the replacement.
Why is it disgusting?? Why should Time Warner eat the cost?? Because they are left wing? Is that enough reason?I can't stand Time-Warner, AOL, Ted or Jane and a lot of other stuff. However, I agree with you. It's up to the subscriber to insure property that he is borrowing that he can't afford to replace if lost, stolen, struck by lightning, eaten by the dog, etc.