Double Bishop Fianchettos

Gimmicky chess irks me...you know, where people place silly gambits or systems  that display a lack of creative thought.  The double bishop fianchetto in the opening is one of these, where no matter what opening I play as white or back, my opponent nudges his b and g pawns forward one square and then fianchetto his bishops.

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than stomping this silly system (I know its an anti-computer opening, so maybe live chess players who don't get out much like using it) and I usually crush it by starting a pawn storm and using my knights to remove those gimmicky bishops as soon as possible.  This leaves the player rather helpless and floundering.

These are my two questions.

1.)  What is your favorite way to punish this novice opening?

2.) Why do players insit on using it when it clearly shows a lack of discipline to learn real chess theory?

2.) Because not everyone deeply cares about what other people say.

When I started playing I used a Kingside Fianchetto vs everything and pushed only the c pawn forward and usually ending up with some kind of reversed Hedgehog formation vs everything. I played this system because it kept me alive longer than anything else and I began winning games by the skin of my teeth, going for a single pawn advantage and barly defending my King by a single move after the Bishop had to retreat to h1 or something to avoid being exchanged. It wasn't anything like a "lack of descipline to learn real theory" I simply had no idea about other goals in an opening yet and other stuff was too sharp for me to figure out on my own. If I played my computer in a real opening I'd be losing a pawn or something in the first 10 moves, but if I played my system I was safe and could play a game. It wasn't until much later that I could understand play outside that system, that I should be controlling the center, getting my pieces to good squares, doing other things besides "keeping safe," and now when I see that kind of thing I do want to stomp it, but I think I understand it. I imagine the double fianchetto people are similar. Last night I played someone who kept on playing the same fianchetto setup regardless of my moves; it was annoying; and I laughed at it a bit, like "seriously?" when I started playing absolutely mad and rediculous early Kingside pawn advances without being punished, and yeah... of course it's a novice thing. I don't see any lack of discipline, though. It's a phase in some people's development. I imagine when people are doing that their goals in the opening are very different from yours or mine. Actually when figured out the system it felt like I was understanding the game and playing good chess for the first time, and in many ways I was. I don't think there's anything wrong with learning that way.

tc irks me a whole lot more than gimmicky chess.

You call this system 'silly', yet you don't know how to punish it? Maybe thats because its not as 'silly' as you think. Many variations of the Reti involve both fianchetto's, and its practitioners - people who know the maneuvers - can be pretty tough to beat.

@Dragon5000...I disagree.  It is silly.  Using a double bishop fianchetto in the opening repeatedly...say b3, g3, Bb2, Bg2 without fail is callow.  At best it is a "system" like the Colle, but it's hardly even that.  Check databases, chess chess texts, or check GM games.  Sure, it can be gimicky fun, but it's not solid chess. If it was, that is, a solid advanatge could be obtained from it repeatedly, it would be seen more.  Since it's not, there are theortical holes in it that can be exploited.  I've found the best way to exploit this is claim the center, advance the pawns center pawns to turn one of the bishops into a "bad bishop", and then pawn storm the other. That's just my take on it in which I find success.  But I'm curious if there are other takes on it.  But I don't by the take of yours that it's "not silly."