Absolutely Confusing

So, I've been thinking a lot about these random existential questions, and there comes to mind a question that I've been asked previously, and only recently did I recall how to work out the solution. The question being; "What is wrong with the statement; 'There are no absolutes except for the fact that there are no absolutes.'?" Which in appearance seems to be a legitimate statement. However, if we look at it from a logical standpoint, I think we can firmly diffuse the statement has being somewhat self-contradictory. For the sake of brevity, assume that when I use the phrase "there are no absolutes" that the exception is implicitly included.

Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.