Your much toned “high and mighty” attempt comes short, especially towards your end.

Being rational and professional comes by good education over the years as education is a gradual process. You cannot develop these traits in a 4-5 week intensive ESL course offered by a commercial provider.

A “good education” is not only based on who the teachers are, where they come from or what qualifications they have, but it is also founded on what academic programs, materials or support it puts forward. In sense of schooling, what some countries like China offer to their students and teachers may truly not be addressed in either “4-5 week intensive ESL course” or 4-5 year post graduate academic programs.

Witht that being said, it follows that not everyone could be and should be a teacher. It's one of the structural problems in corporate ESL, and the selection procedure needs to be more strict as to who is allowed to teach in the classroom.

The selection process for foreign academics to, for example, Chinese classrooms depends on a variety of circumstances such as program goals or schools intentions. Here, much of what we are debating opens to interpretations. Whether it is “corporate ESL” or not, however, may not matter as much as you have been suggesting on the board. The field that we are discussing is full of all sorts of inferior opportunities which may or may not have to do with the education to such an extent as you and I are thinking here.

As to using English as the only medium of instruction in the classroom, I have already said tnat several seetings need to be taken into account:
ESL in native English speaking countries most lilkely will only use English as a medium of insrtruction in the classroom, and it may also be necessary to do so in case of ESL classes where learners come from different ethnic groups with different first languages. In all other cases, which I believe is the majority of classroom settings, you should have a good and useful mix of first and second language as media of instruction in the ESL classroom.

What may or may not be necessary, again, depends on more than you are bringing in here. In a test driven society where academic programs cut corners purposely, a qualified and experienced foreign teacher may stand in front of a task impossible to achieve and that regardless the teacher’s knowledge of the local language. For this teacher, increasing students’ proficiency in English to the necessary levels for higher education abroad is virtually unattainable with the interference of the students’ first language in the class. The scores of Chinese students, out of whom some perform surprisingly well in tests, are living examples of foreign students at western universities with poor communication skills in English. Those students’ inadequate group discussion sessions or presentations at the universities prove that their 20 years of English language studies mean little. So, yet again, you are a poor advocate of such a rotten system that caters to local authorities and employees who are eager to control the foreign experts and who are hungry to get the jobs that the country is barely able to offer them.

ESL teachers who call themselves "professionals" like you do (and I doubt somewhat you are comparing to the general standards in the major parts of the world) have a problem and would be rightly questioned regarding that claim when they are unable to use a wider range of methodologies according to the special needs of their students because they were trained in one type of ES methodology only. The same when they go abroad for teaching ESL and are not abl to speak amnother foreign language and even don't the need to do so. Exactly that seems to be your situation, and such a situation I would call sub-standard and mediocre at best.

The learning technique many students in such systems as the Chinese are used to is the rote memorization and direct translations word for word. Suggesting “a wider range of methodologies according to the special needs”, as you say it, appears not only contradictive to the local system but also to what we are debating here. Foreign academics truly use varieties of ways when teaching unlike the, for example, Chinese counterparts practice. Chinese English teachers’ drilling of their students with 30, 40 or even 50 random words of foreign language daily and then matching those words directly to their local language serves as a dreadful example of how those students most often end up so incapable to use the language they study for ages. Many of those learners never recover from such experiences and are often tunable to adjust to another system and consequently another language at all; so, the foreign teacher that soothes the pain with some local language assistance to those unfortunate learners may be only putting bandages on bleeding wounds. Speaking of “sub-standard and mediocre at best” classes.

As for "primitive manners", I remind you of your own "primitive manner" when you decided to take my input on that point as an "insult" when I was simply stating my opinion without even targeting you personally. Since then you must not wonder that you are paid back in like manner s I am a person who is not willing to take such crap from anybody.
In other words, clean your own doors first before you accuse someone of "primitive manners" or imaginary "insults" and apply to yourself first what you expect from others, hypocrite!

Here is yet another oversensitive approach to conclusions from an individual who cannot stop writing about himself and directing his frustrations at others. How such self-indulgent “professional teachers” perform in classrooms would be interesting to see as much as it would be how they increase the language learners’ proficiency levels.