I gave up on the main issue, and so described my understanding of the reasons that justify giving up.

Sorry. I missed that subtext. Giving up may well be the best course.

your position is that something is meaningless, and mine is that there is a sense behind that, this is a failure of communication.

But my position is not that something (specifically an 'ought' statement) is meaningless. I only maintain that the meaning is not attained by assigning "truth value conditions".

One last attempt ...

Your attempt was a step in the right direction, but still IMO still leaves a large gap in understanding. You seem to think that anyone who thinks carefully enough will agree with you that there is some set of core meta-ethical principles that acts as an attractor in a dynamic process of reflective updating.

I disagree with this. There is no core attractor, and the dynamic process is not one of better and better thinking as time goes on. Instead, the dynamics I am talking about is the biological evolutionary process which results in a change over time in the typical human brain. That plus the technological change over time which is likely to bring uploaded humans, AIs, aliens, and "uplifted" non-human animals into our collective social contract.