Ludwig, no problem whatsoever, I didn’t notice anything bad about your tone.

I’m not completely sure what you mean when you argue the necessity of the existence of OL from the non-observant POV (from the observant POV it is, obviously, granted). Did there have to be interpretations of text immediately upon the “release” (let’s call it thus) of the written Torah? Obviously, even if they only were personal interpretations by each reader. Was there a unified public interpretation almost immediately after the “release”? May be, may be not, but if there was, there is no evidence that it corresponded to the OL as you have it now. As well there could have been competing schools of interpretations for an undefined period of time.

Now, what does that have to do with the initial issue? Interpretations are relevant to the practice - whether one was forbidden to mix this with that, etc. Again, I’m not arguing about the practice. Stonings may or may not have taken place. But the text of the written Torah is there and it is separate from whatever interpretations for practical usage people may have built around it - whether as early as it appeared or thousands of years later. The issue of vowels has only limited relevance unless you will argue that the texts in question cannot be translated except by the reference to the Talmud.

As to your last inquiry about what I meant in regard to rabbinic developments - Talmud itself needs to be interpreted, especially given that the circumstances under which it was written differ markedly from the modern circumstances. For example, see Jacob Katz’s Exclusiveness and tolerance, pp. 30ff., he explains it better than I.