I was critiquing what you actually did, not your intent.

I don't disagree with your intent, or with basically anything you said this time.

But in the original post, once you dispelled the notion of perfect objectivity, you stopped using the word rather than reclaiming it for a pragmatic meaning. You used "pragmatic truth" rather than "objective truth". To clarify the distinction, fair enough...but you never clarified that "pragmatic truth" is basically what everyone aside from philosophers experiences as "objective truth" anyway.

Likewise, I didn't criticize the people-on-the-moon example last time as being wrong (well, except for the parts that were wrong...but it's a relatively easy fix) but rather because it misdirects rather than aids intuition.

I agree that a pragmatic notion is necessary at least because we lack perfect, complete knowledge. (Even then it might be arguable, but why argue that when we can't get there?) I just don't think the presentation got particularly effectively at the key points needed to both abandon impossibly-perfect-objectivity while retaining practical-objectivity. In particular, you say here that you reject postmodern relativism, but the arguments you made are hard to distinguish from certain formulations of postmodern thought (especially if you switch "pragmatic truth" for "truth-claim").