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.
I see no contradiction at all in asserting that truth and objective reality may, and should not only be in accord with one another but be identical, residing outside of each and every observer yet partially accessible to the same.