The fact that you are not going to worry about morality, does not make morality a) false b) meaningless or c) subjective. Can I take it you are no longer arguing for any of claims a) b) or c) ?

I've never argued (a), I'm still arguing (actually just informing you) that the words "objective morality" are meaningless to me

You are not actually being all that informative, since there remains a distinct supsicion that when you say some X is meaningless-to-you, that is a proxy for I-don't-agree-with-it. I notice throughout these discussions that you never reference accepted dictiionary definitions as a basis for meaningfullness, but instead always offer some kind of idiosyncratic personal testimony.

and I'm still arguing (c) but only in the sense that it is equivalent to (b): in other words, I can only await some argument that morality is objective. (But first I'd need a definition!)

What is wrong with dictionary definitions?

You have not succeeded in showing that winning is the most important thing.

I'm using the word winning as a synonym for "getting what I want," and I understand the most important thing to mean "what I care about most."

That doesn't affect anything. You still have no proof for the revised version.

And I mean "want" and "care about" in a way that makes it tautological. Keep in mind I want other people to be happy

Other people out there in the non-existent Objective World?

, not suffer, etc. Nothing either of us have argued so far indicates we would necessarily have different moral sentiments about anything.

I don't think moral anti-realists are generally immoral people. I do think it is an intellectual mistake, whether or not you care about that.