The post essentially said no such thing. It made no reference to the personal belief of the poster, but referenced truth as an absolute, which, by nature, would not be subject to the poster's whims, but is an objective ideal. If there is no such ideal, then nothing can be held to any objective standard. Truth is that which is in accord with objective reality. In that regard we all fall short in terms of comprehension.
Have a good evening.
but referenced truth as an absolute, which, by nature, would not be subject to the poster's whims, but is an objective ideal
But on the other hand you say:
Truth is that which is in accord with objective reality.
That, the second comment, is MY theory (or, rather, the "correspondence theory" of truth). It CONTRADICTS ap2's claim that truth is absolute. The very meaning of saying that something is "absolute" is that it is NOT relative to, in the sense of being conditional or contingent upon, some other thing. Once you say that truth is determined by its "accord with objective reality," you're conceding that truth is conditioned, and therefore not "absolute".
Even with your (well earned) reputation of vagary and arm waving, you can't escape this contradiction.