From Moses through John, if it was important for people to remember, and for future generations to know, then it was written down for a permanent record. The Romans and the subsequent Roman Catholic Church observes nothing as authoritative unless it is written down. Thus to argue against the scriptures from which it claims authority is truly hypocritical.
And when you talk of "Tradition", what makes you think that the real Judeo-Christian Tradition did not pass through the Waldensians and all those churches that had a tradition of valuing the Scriptures above the oral teachings and pontifications of even those mere mortal men who served as their pastors.
You say that Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, but what makes you think that it is not the foundation of Tradition of all the true churches. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, all the early church fathers cited Scripture as the source of authority for the things they wrote about --- not hearsay, rumor, oral traditions. They cited the hard facts of Scripture.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is testified to not only by Scripture itself, but also by that Tradition that you laud so much --- the tradition of the written word over the spoken word, which your post is evidence of. If you think that the oral word is so valuable, then why didn't you deliver this rant of yours orally. Why did you bother to put it in written form?
FYI...there was actually strong Jewish prohibition against writing the Oral Law until well into the Christian era (200? 300?). It was supposed to be passed down orally only.