Hmm, you don't read things very closely, metal, do you! I've clearly said, on this thread and elsewhere, that I teach in high schools in Japan (in fact I have substantial experience at elementary, junior and senior high i.e. all school levels), so you'll perhaps forgive me for not adding 'Japanese high school/pre-university' between 'many' and 'students' (when I ask e.g. 'How many students are of the intellectual calibre of a Nabokov?'). Anyway, I thought it was clear that I was not saying that Japanese students are necessarily unintelligent, but rather that they are probably not getting all the help that they might with their English education.
As for patronizing "my" students, I'm not the one presenting decontextualized, awry examples as the rule rather than the exception (simply because "I" can't be bothered to find better ones that would surely be more appealing to, and
appreciated by students that "I" seem to have "written off", consigned to a very plodding and strict lockstep that only goes as slow as, and never ever any faster than, the very slowest of ships); the only people patronizing to students round here are, I can assure you, the Japanese teachers. Still, if I had my way (perhaps after appearing to "patronize" - that is 'inform', 'educate' - the JTEs LOL), maybe the classes wouldn't learn a thing and would still be unable to understand much if any English after a year or more with me, eh (=irony alert).
Furthermore, you seem to have missed the entire point of the discussion: the JTE's example was decidedly decontextualized and only accrued its "meaning" through the sheer insistent force of the JTE that it meant
be going to (in accordance with the stated lesson aim/target "language" (grammatical structure)); as for your example, it has far more context(ualization), but even so, I am not sure how I would interpret it exactly in that context, were I present to hear it said (I rather suspect that I wouldn't give it much thought, or if I did give it any, that I would soon give up on account of its ambiguity still, somewhat, to my mind at least).
So we ultimately have an example (yours now, more contextualized) that will probably be (un)interpreted "correctly" (that is, raise fewer eyebrows less high than the JTE's totally decontextualized example). My question, however, remains: to what extent will these two examples, yours or especially the JTE's decontextualized one, give students a more solid grasp of
be going to (as it is less ambiguously used) than they otherwise might gain?
You'll probably huff and puff that
of course your students don't encounter
only such examples -
of course they meet (or have met) many more, doubtless more "standard" ones. But I think I can be forgiven for questioning what exactly it is that YOU do, 'wherever and whoever you teach', when all you seem to do on Dave's at least is focus on the atypical (at the expense, in the discussion here on Dave's, of the typical).
Oh, and before you start again, yes, I know we need ever new descriptions etc, but I guess the "Metal56 Advanced Basic Non-essential Grammar" will be longer in the making than even Carter and McCarthy's new one took.
Talking of things taking a long time, you were a while replying here, eh (I thought actually that you'd run off with your tail between your legs or simply given up or something), and I have to wonder if this was entirely due to having to e.g. bottle-feed your new baby. Is she as cute as you, babe?
JTT, I also noticed the frequent co-occurence of 'with', but I didn't want to say, unless anyone thought I didn't have a one-track linguistic mind.
One of those cases when a word means exactly the opposite of what it says 
