<bq>A 'code' of ethics is a myth. It is only in the most convoluted of circumstances that ethical dilemmas arise. Up to that point, there is no moral quandary. Simply because there <i>exist</i> cases for which a simple, straighforward, common-sense ethics has no answer is no reason to doubt its validity where it <i>does</i> apply. Social interaction is not mathematics; one example does not suffice to disprove its correctness. Therefore, for most matters, there is only one ethics to which all can adhere - that all will agree is correct and fair. Anyone peddling a 'code' of ethics is just trying to get away with something.</bq> <bq>Everything you know about communism was taught to you by anti-communists.</bq> <bq>'wordless truth' - A description in words can never be more than a sketch. To ascribe words to something is to accept a substandard of the real. Doomed to failure. Quantification of the whole, enumeration of properties; they always fall short. It's like trying to say every fraction from 0 to 1. It is not a failure to be unable to convey some concepts to others. It is a recognition of the purity of the concept and the inadequacy of the tools (language) to prove in words what is blindingly obvious.</bq>