First thought is this: A bug's likelyhood of ever being fixed decays with time, starting when I first read it. If I have to read it a second time, the bug has already become more complex, since something prevented me from just fixing it the first time. If more information has to be added to the bug, that makes it yet more complex. If there is an argument in the bug about whether it is a bug, or how to fix it, just revisiting the bug at a later date can become more expensive than it's worth. Much of what is involved in filing good and effective bug reports are obvious corollaries of this. It also follows that it's best to either fix, or at least plan how to fix a bug immediatly upon reading it.

Second thought is about "wontfix". A bug submitter and the developer responsible for the bug see this state in very different ways, but the name hides what it really means, which is that there is a meta-bug affecting either the bug submitter, the developer, or both. Once you realize this, wontfix bugs, from either side, become a bit personally insulting. They also quickly decay to uselessness (see first thought), and then just lurk there wasting the developer's time in various ways. Bug tracking systems should not provide a "wontfix" state; if they want to track meta-bugs they should provide a way to reassign such a bug to some other party who can actually resolve such a meta-bug.