Not really
Your deep need to fail in the search for absolutes is the foolishness depicted here.
The stanpoint of not being the relative fool is the only point from which to have a point of reference to make a perspective. Cant say much of anything without first posing at least one side of a relationship between two or more points. And, who ever said they weren't a fool? Your double speak on whether or not you yourself are a fool depicts yourself as saying your point is the superior non fool point. So.... ? Rhetoric much?
Note, also you deflected
So?
Didn't say I'm not a fool, and you make yourself out as one with an observation that begins "Your deep need" about someone of whom you have barely a clue. You also seen unable to keep entirely different points from clashing into each other. It isn't double speak to admit the obvious truth of sometimes being wrong or foolish while asserting knowledge on a specific matter.
If I knew just what you are claiming in this discussion to be an equivocation fallacy I might address your repeated question, or I might not bother, but I don't. I'm also put off by the egoism in, "Why else would I have to be the guy." Go posture someplace else; it's wasted here.