No I don't. As you said, the statement cannot be known by its own admission.
That's not what the statement, nor I meant at all. What the statement said was that we could not know anything
with absolute certainty. We can know all kinds of things to be true relative to other things. What we can't know is how what we don't know would change what we do know if we were to come to know it. And because we can't know this, we can never be certain that what we think we know to be true, is absolutely and certainly true.
I find the philosophical stance that the truth cannot be known as deconstructive and fundamentally disagrees with Western progress over the past 2500 years. I tend to be more pragmatic. I think it is for all practical purposes possible to have a meaningful grasp of what is really true.
I can't for the life of me understand why you keep insisting on taking this idea of truth to it's most absolute extreme. Again, no one here is even remotely suggesting that we can't know anything with a relative sureness of accuracy. Or that we can't live our lives successfully based on this relative knowledge. We can and we do. That's obvious.
But this discussion began with the idea of there being an absolute universal truth, and that we can know it. And although there may be some absolute universal truths, it is not logical to presume that we humans could know it, because we don't have the capacity to verify such a truth, if it exists, and if we were to encounter it.