This part of your input (quoted below) sums up nicely what YL ESL teaching is about. If you posted such things without any personal comments on your adversaries here, such contributions would be more than welcome.

As mentioned several times, my initial posts on this board were attacked by you and yours first, before I ever said a word to any of you. You set the tone, not me. You cannot insult and mock and not expect the same in return.

Also, considering the sheer volume of your posts that are insulting in nature, you should take your own advice before posting such condescending codswallop in future.

However, here are some points of critique:

The rest of your post is a classic principle of explosion, whereby your initial point is predicated on a fallacy and so the resulting comments from that fallacy are inconsequential. In this instance the fallacy is your assumption that children under 10 should not be taught a second language in the classroom. That premise, and it's subsequent arguments for, is moot as children under 10 are taught a second language in the classroom. As stated before, most countries introduce English as a second language between the ages of 4-6. So your 'points' are in fact pointless.

And you again have failed to state how this age group should be taught if not in the manner in which it is currently.

However, I will address your points, just to show again how little you understand YL teaching.

- students under 10 years of age should not be taught a second language in classes but in a more "natural" environment outside. Teaching them in classes should come at a later age.

But they are, so this has no relevance to the topic of under-10 teaching methodology.

-Drills only have a mechanic impact of repeating language material and ignore productive language skills.
-The same for TPR.

Yes, the whole point of drills is to repeat language, and repetition is supremely important for YL teaching. You will note however that I also said drills had a limited scope as most students find such teacher focused learning boring, which is why I advocate learner-to-learner repetition, putting the learning in the hands of the student in a more natural setting (students asking each other 'what's this?' for example, or basic question structures like preferences and likes and dislikes)

- It also depends on the native language literacy level of these kids whether teaching writing and reading skills and the differentiation of phonemes in the second language would be useful at a certain stage

Yes, it does. I believe I a stated as much in my initial post. Although teaching children to identify different sounds is not only helpful for reading skills, but also with pronunciation. As a linguist you should know that.

However, differing levels of ability is to be expected in any classroom at any age; that doesn't mean the students should not receive a balanced lesson. I have taught many children aged between 6-10 how to read in English and often (due in part to the smaller class size and subsequent increase in teacher>student interaction than in a state school) the child's ability to read in English is often better, or on a par with, their ability to read in their native language.

(note that "phonemes" is a linguistic term........hahahahhahaha)

Whan did I say it wasn't? You are the only one who appears to feel that I have no idea of linguistics, despite the fact that linguistics features heavily in the DELTA syllabus and there are modules on linguistics in a Lit. degree. As said many times, you obviously haven't looked in to what is involved in either and so continue to remain ignorant on the topic. You ae also the one who wants to draw battle lines between Lit. and linguistics, when I have always maintained they are simply two facets of the same subject.

- First Language acquisition is a holistic process with receptive and productive language skills interacting. The same should apply when teaching ESL to this YL group with a focus on spoken language first and written language at a later stage.

This is somewhat of a contradiction as on the one hand you are saying that L2 acquisition should be more natural, but in the second breath mocking those methodologies that make L2 acquisition natural, for example, games and play interactions with a native speaker. So which is it? Is the teaching classroom based and serious (which you have said here is undesirable) or is it fun and engaging, utilising games and play motivators for full immersion naturalised acquisition (which you have compared to monkeys dancing). You cannot have it both ways.

And again, at no point have you suggested what should be done instead of the methodologies currently used internationally to teach L2 to YL students.

As you appear to be incapable of doing so, for your ease I will alter the boundaries of the challenge... Think of a grammar point in the Elementary (A1) to Pre-Intermediate (Upper A1 to lower A2) range and I will tell you how I would approach teaching that point for a class of... Ooooh, let's say 8 year old students. You can then tell me where you think my methods are incorect and correct them as to how you would advise teaching that same class. Over to you.