Besides the acronyms/initialisms debate (which I was almost inclined to care about until I noticed that at least one dictionary allows acronyms that aren't pronounced as words in their own right, and nobody seems to use initalisms anyway) acronyms seem to be something open to huge abuse.

There's a certain class of words that get left out of them, but nobody seems to agree on what they are. 'And' is normally omitted, for example (although it's occasionally let back in for special purposes, such as for the 'Computer Literacy And Information Technology' course that my secondary school ran). Other words may or may not make it in, depending on what word those coining the phrase would like to spell.

I suppose that's the bit that bugs me. It's related to that whole business/marketing buzz-words phenomenon: some people will go to great lengths to name things so that they can have a catchy acronym (acronym as opposed to initialism, in this instance). WYSIWYG was about the limit as far as I'm concerned, saved mainly by the fact that it's pretty catchy to say with or without abbreviation, and all the words do belong in the phrase. Another evil is the nested acronym: just when you think you've expanded the damn thing and can start trying to work out what it might mean, you've got another layer to decode.1

With whatever combination of horror and apathy suits you, see how long it takes you to work out how they got STUN from Simple Transversal of User Datagram Packets through Network Address Translation.

1 A possible exception to the general evil of nesting acronyms is a nicely designed recursive acronym, such as PHP or GNU, although there are a host of others that get less respect and forgiveness from my corner. After all, it's still got to fit: PHP is, in a sense, a Hypertext Preprocessor, and GNU is definitely Not Unix (and the fact that nobody really seems to know what it is doesn't bother them nearly so much as people using the word Linux to refer to more than the kernel).