Wrong. The claim that truth is absolute, is stark-raving mad, utterly loony, and ultimately meaningless, like most of the things you post.
Two rational and non-deluded people are sitting across from each other, with a book on a table to one side of them.
One of them says, sincerely, 'the book is to my right.'.
The other says, sincerely, 'the book is to my left.'.
Both are true statements, and objective. If one knows the speaker's location, one can then calculate the direction of the book, without actually being that person - or without even being in that person's location.
If one of these persons says, sincerely, 'My favourite colour is green', that is objectively true as well. It is objectively true that their favourite colour is green. Nothing in the statement implies that everyone's favourite colour is green. It is a very, very petty objective truth, but is one nonetheless.
If a third person walks into this scenario and says, sincerely, 'A magical flying teapot created the universe and loves everyone', then they are objectively false. But could this be said to be, at least, subjectively true? No. Whilst the subjective does indeed relate to perspective, it is insufficient to override the nature of truth being actual and non-contradictory. It is therefore absurd to say that 'it is true for you', if one is not describing a fact or condition which could be objectively phrased, ie, 'John Smith is in pain'; 'Jane Bloggs is in love', etc.
Note that saying 'John Smith believes in a magical flying teapot which created the universe and loves everyone' is objectively true - since it includes the word, 'believes' - to disconnect the observation from the claim.
To describe truth as always absolute - (perfect, complete, etc), is not an incredible proposition. After all, we do not define truth as only the facts we know. Hence phrases like, 'let's discover the truth'. To say that doing so is 'stark-raving mad, utterly loony, and ultimately meaningless' demonstrates a lack of attendance on your part to reality or nuance.
