A couple ways to look at this...

1. Truth is absolute and objective. Everything can be relegated into the realm of absolute truth or falsehood, including statements like "Nicole Kidman is beautiful." Only objective truth (that which is true in all possible times in all possible universes) is truth; subjective truth does not exist. What most call a subjective truth is merely a subjective view. (This boils down to the semantics of how we define "truth.")

2. Truth is not absolute. You can say that some things can be relegated into the realm of objective truth or falsehood (e.g. 2+2=4), but some things cannot be (e.g. "Nicole Kidman is beautiful").

a. Truth can only be objective, but is not always absolute. If something can't be deemed absolutely true or absolutely false... it simply has no truth value... it's not that it is a subjective truth (as there is no such thing), but that it is indeterminate.
b. Truth may be subjective or objective, but only objective truth may be absolute. If something can't be deemed absolutely true or absolutely false, then if it is a truth, it is a subjective one (relative).
This whole quote reaveals some misunderstandings of the key concepts. If many people on this forum understand the concepts objectivity and absolute in the way you describe here, that would explain why people are so confused about it. They simply don't understand what I am saying, and they don't understand the meanings of words like "objective" and "absolute truth".

In order to make these things a bit more clear to everyone, I am going to quote a passage from Tibor R. Machan's book Objectivity: Recovering Determinate Reality in Philosophy, Science, and Everyday Life:

What is an 'objective, absolute truth'? It is a proposition that identifies facts of reality that are basic, universal, and inescapable.

Such a truth is objective because it identifies something that exists and is what it is independent of the proposition. If one states that the sun is shining today, and it is shining to today, the sun would be shining no matter who made the proposition or whether the proposition had been uttered at all. This view is known as the 'correspondence' theory of truth.

A truth is absolute if it states a fundamental, universal, and inescapable fact, a fact that holds no matter what other facts might also exist. Not every objective truth is absolute. The sun, after a time, will no longer shine. But all absolute truths are objective, else they would not be truths.
Quote Originally Posted by Loki
If you could easily grasp their point of view, we wouldn't have to choke over this distinction like a bone in a piece of chicken one is trying to swallow. But because this has to be constantly choked over... discussions go nowhere. And that's why it's annoying. (Maybe you do easily grasp their point of view, but it doesn't have any bearing on how you respond.)
To problem for me is that people on this forum don't use already established philosophical terms in the way they should be used, because people on this forum don't understand the concepts correctly. And that makes it hard for me to know what they really have in mind.

To avoid confusions and misunderstandings people must simply learn the correct meaning of these concepts, otherwise we turn this into a stupid guessing game in which we can never know for sure that we are talking about the same thing or not. Therefore people should accept what I say is the correct use of philosophical terms without questioning.

Quote Originally Posted by Loki
You can deny what may be the subjective aspect of reality if you like, and try to take these "subjective" aspects and dissect them to sort out the absolute truth and absolute falsehood of all of them so that they fit into your absolutist objectivist system without contradicting one another. But I don't know how you would know that this constitutes finding the truth of reality rather than just constituting the workings of your own mind and how it is sorting out reality. Maybe it's all in your head, true to you, and reality remains as indistinct as it wants to be.
And here you confuse again, as people on this forum do all the time, the different logical concepts truth and knowledge. That is another fundamental logical distinction that people just have to learn and accept as valid without questioning it. It is irritating that people don't understand that they don't understand these concepts correctly. They simply don't realize the logical errors they are making.

Quote Originally Posted by Loki
That you don't recognize anything as being subjective, or recognize any point of view other than your own... that's why there are constant disagreements between you and most people on the forum.
There are a lot of things in the world that are subjective, but truths are not members of that category.

Quote Originally Posted by Loki
It's difficult to communicate with you because one has to translate everything into your worldview to understand what you mean.
The only thing people have to do in order to understand what I am saying is to learn the basic rules of a philosophical discussion. You have to learn the common language that is used and accepted by everyone who has a basic education in philosophy. You are simply uneducated, and that should really not be my problem, even though I try my best to correct your misunderstandings and lack of knowledge by giving small lectures on philosophy now and then. The problem is, however, that people are questioning the content of what I teach, and that is both irritating for me and stupid of them, because that means that they will remain ignorant.