The Wall Street Journal has another "Oh no, people need to learn text/Internet acronyms" piece today, which opens with the following anecdote:

Kate Washburn didn't know what to make of the email a friend sent to her office with the abbreviation "NSFW" written at the bottom. Then she clicked through the attached sideshow, titled "Awkward Family Photos." It included shots of a family in furry "nude" suits and of another family alongside a male walrus in a revealing pose.

After looking up NSFW on NetLingo.com-a Web site that provides definitions of Internet and texting terms-she discovered what it stood for: "Not safe for work."

Fair enough. As insular as we are, it is not unhelpful to occasionally be reminded that there are plenty of people who have no idea what 'NSFW' means. (You can find our own guide to text and Internet acronyms here.) You may be incredibly web savvy, but think about it from an outsider's perspective: How many people who don't spend a lot of time online know that ACHBR stands for 'Are Chelsea Handler's Boobs Real?' (Still no definitive answer on that query, btw. NOTE: BTW is an acronym which means 'by the way,' newbies!)

Anyway, the whole thing brings up a good question: Is 'NSFW' alone comprehensive enough anymore? I'd like to suggest that we further qualify the warning by appending a brief description of the contents. It's easy enough. For example:

NSFW: EW (Erect Walrus)
NSFW: FFA (Furry Family Assplay)
NSFW: SVP (Shirtless Vladimir Putin)
NSFW: TTWT2GYFWSGOB (That thing With The Two Girls Your Friend Was So Grossed Out By)
NSFW: PJ (Piss Jeep)

Etc. You can see the possibilities. I mean, we're all pretty busy these days. It would be nice to have a better idea of what we want to click through to.