waider | maybe my role in life is to be cranky web guy

Hi. Your site uses cookies. That's nice. What I object to is the following:

one attempt to set cookies should be enough. it's easy to test if your cookie-setting succeeded, and if not, abandon any other attempts.
blocking access because I don't have a cookie is okay if the site uses cookies for auth. If the site uses cookies in some other way that prevents me from using it, I am no longer happy with you and will take my reading elsewhere.
if you are blocking on a login, and you redirect me from where I wanted to go to your login page, you should be forwarding me right back to that page once I've accepted your cookie. You should not be leaving me at a generic login page (thank you, washington post) because I'll just not bother trying to relocate the page I was looking for.
That bit about one attempt? How about ONE COOKIE? If you give me a single cookie, you can stash it away on your site with any other information you need to keep about what I'm doing. You do not have to send me multiple cookies.
Wait, you do want to send me multiple cookies? How about not sending them from multiple servers? Are people still doing this "one server for images, one for cgi scripts, one for, oh, I don't know, exploiting Internet Explorer security holes? It's annoying, it is. Can't you just set a single top-of-the-domain cookie, and use that to key everything else?

Sigh. I think it must be time to go home.