Was it ever really in doubt?

Doesn't the fact that I had to question it indicate that it was truly in doubt?

Aren't you simply entangled in meaningless rules in an abitrary game rather than a geniune seeker of truth, thus casting doubts upon the meanings of your questions in the first place?

Who are you to decide whether someone is a "genuine" seeker of truth, anyway?

But since "truth" is designed to be shaped, molded, and spun to suit the needs of whoever is quoting it, can truth ever be actually "genuine"?

Doesn't that depend on whether you follow the ideas of post-structuralism (cough intellectual wankery cough) and those in a similar vein?

All that aside, how can any of you claim that you somehow understand the nature of truth more than anyone else?

Doesn't it make more sense that truth is as malleable and subsceptable to alteration as the rest of the World is?

Or, could it be that perhaps every individual has their own personal take on what truth really is and all of them are different by varying degrees?

Why are you all avoiding post-structuralism as it has all the answers that you seek (as long as you answer the question Why? with Because!)?