Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

@Zigur

I requested stuff, not stuff that reifies what you already wrote, but stuff this way:

....I'd like to see you ground your point in some materials, please, especially since you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately, and that The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

You asserted that Rings were Un-ringy in the Hobbit and that Unringy Rings were not really Rings--as in LotR Rings, even though Tolkien was writing about LotRINGS as a title pretty much as the Hobbit was hitting the shelves. (I haven't yet reached the max-level of chaos in responding that usually has Ungoliant in my method. If you see Ungoliant appearing it'll be because the concession about what was explicitly stated in the Hobbit is not embedded in a response.

Informed consent. Ungoliants come out when I get hysterical and laugh lot

Add in it's hard to keep an un-Ringy argument about The Hobbit-Rings when we factor in Silmarillion notes from 1927. Sauron, "hot bad boi" was around in Tolkien's 'lust, greed, seductions, Rings of Fire' (durbataluk) in Morgothian-offshoots for quite some time.