: However, you are missing my point, which is 'what would the Balrog of Moria have done with the Ring had he gotten his grubby little corrupted Maiar paws on it'? I resist the notion that the Ring would have instantly overwhelmed it's mind with an urge to return it to Barad-Dur. Can you say 'Gollum'?

Where in my post did I give a time limit on how long it would take for the Balrog to succumb? Yes I can say 'Gollum'. The Ring seeks its maker and corrupts any who try to use it themselves - over time. I apaologize if you thought that I thought that the Ring acted instantly on whomever was carrying or wearing it.

But as far as it goes, nothing in the text tells us what motivated the Balrog. How do we know it was after the Ring in the first place? It mayt have simply wanted to destroy the perceived enemies (Gandalf, Aragorn, et al).

: More to the point, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel all refused the Ring because while they could all wield the power of the Ring to defeat Sauron, it's inherent evil would cause them to set themselves up in his stead.

: The Balrog would have had no such scruples (granted, I'm assuming here) but would it have wanted to establish some sort of dominion over lesser creatures? I would say not. Balrogs do not display any tendency to set up independent 'kingdoms', nor any tendency to be anything other than 'shock troops'. Glaurung was more acquisitive by far than any Balrog, IMHO.

I agree.

One of the things I like and at the same time find infuriatingly frustrating is the nebulous phraseology that Tolkien often uses. On the one hand it allows the reader to imagine for him or herself many of the details, but each individual being different it is bound to cause to debates between them.