Then what is your opinion on my chain of thoughts? Even if they are informal statements. It seems that it's very important to you to have a formal argument.
I plan on writing about paradoxes, and how they relate to human emotion and language next - in the same series of posts, related to this.

I do it because it is fun for me, but it's not entirely clear to me what value they would end up adding for others.

Absolutely keep going. Don't be in too much of a hurry to get answers. Clarifying an issue is beyond valuation.

Thanks!

Please feel free to point out any obvious flaw or shortcomings in my arguments. That would help a lot!
If I may ask, you seem to have had a formal education in Philosophy?

I will not attempt a Tarski and define truth with a circular definition (which is inevitable), but would assume that you and me share the meaning of the word "truth".

This is the primary issue with your argument. You can't assume anything especially when there is ample disagreement. It may be convenient so that you can continue but if someone disagrees, it's over. Best just to state your own beliefs about truths.

Stating beliefs is easy, defining truth is not.
Do you want to give it a try?

But, this is exactly the issue I discuss in the my third post, which is on my blog page, but not here. Rushing to office now, later.

I believe that beliefs is all we have and I'm satisfied with that. When lots of people believe strongly about the same thing (there is spectrum) they call it a truth. If one reviews history and current events (or even this forum), one might notice that truths come and go depending upon the population. Truths are pretty fluid.