CaptHaddock

The Marvin Brown AUA Thai language books and tapes were based on the Audio-Lingual Method popular the US when they were written in the 70's. Later, even Brown himself regretted that his texts omitted grammar which was the basic defect of the ALM method since the student was supposed to absorb the grammar without being taught it.

The AUA method used here in Bangkok in the past and perhaps even now for all I know, has been based on a crackpot theory that students of Thai should only listen for months without making any effort to speak or communicate in Thai at all. The obvious defect, even if you can get students to tolerate the waste of time and money, is that unless the student is attempting to speak Thai himself he hardly knows what to listen for from native Thai speakers. I doubt there was ever any research to support such a bogus approach nor have I heard of any other pedagogy that uses it.

My experience with the old AUA method was complemented with a professor with a PhD in Thai language and linguistics who complemented the first year with plenty of grammar. No single methodology is comprehensive in itself. Good ESL instructors must be eclectic.

As for the other methodology, google "the silent way". It is an accepted methodology and I believe the Peace Corps uses/used to use a similar methodology.

When I google "the silent way" I find content about a man named Caleb Gattegno who developed a method for teaching foreign languages in which the teacher is more or less silent while the student learns language elements like grammar "by induction." Sounds like another bogus theory with no research data to support its dubious assumptions. But it has nothing at all to do with the Thai AUA method in which it is the student who remains silent and only listens for months.

Language learning is full of both charlatans and earnest types committed to bogus theories about how people learn or should learn. Most of those people, both Thais and others, who learn English well do it in a university system. There are no magical solutions and no shortcuts. The student has to memorize a lot and practice all the necessary skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

Years ago when I was running and sometimes bothered by dogs, I bought one of these and then tried on several, innocent dog bystanders. None seemed to notice. It would take a lot of power to produce enough sound to bother a dog seriously. A little handheld device with a couple of AA batteries is not going to do it.

I had no idea AUA is known for a pedagogy based on discredited language acquisition theory and pseudoscience. What a ripoff!

AUA uses/used two very different methodologies, neither of which is totally discredited nor based on any pseudo science. But in the fashion world of the social sciences, some may find their methodologies currently out of fashion. I learned basic Thai using their old "raan ahaan Nik" methodology and it worked well for me and my fellow classmates

The Marvin Brown AUA Thai language books and tapes were based on the Audio-Lingual Method popular the US when they were written in the 70's. Later, even Brown himself regretted that his texts omitted grammar which was the basic defect of the ALM method since the student was supposed to absorb the grammar without being taught it. Those of us Americans who were in school in those years certainly remember the ALM method for which our schools were equipped with language labs, booths iwth tape recorders. The technology and the ALM method itself were supposed to improve achievement in foreign language learning in American schools, but failed completely. Interestingly enough, the ALM method developed out of US military programs to teach enlisted men enough of the Japanese language to enable them to read decrypts of Japanese military radio traffic produced by the code-breaking efforts. That program was practical and successful in its wartime goals, but a poor model for enabling students to achieve fluency in a second language. As far as I know the ALM method has disappeared completely by now.

The AUA method used here in Bangkok in the past and perhaps even now for all I know, has been based on a crackpot theory that students of Thai should only listen for months without making any effort to speak or communicate in Thai at all. The obvious defect, even if you can get students to tolerate the waste of time and money, is that unless the student is attempting to speak Thai himself he hardly knows what to listen for from native Thai speakers. I doubt there was ever any research to support such a bogus approach nor have I heard of any other pedagogy that uses it.

Sorry to hear this, Jing. There are lots of reasons why Thailand may not ideal, but I don't get why you would go back to the USA? Is it because you found living in a foreign culture too stressful? Other than familiarity I don't see many advantages. Certainly not healthcare, which is often of low quality and always too expensive.

If I were to have to return to the US I wouldn't go back to NYC which is the only place I have recent experience living in, because of the cost factor. But it would have to be a city because I refuse to own or drive a car. It couldn't be a place where the American redneck Republican mentality dominates, which rules out the South and much of the West. Maybe Seattle or Portland, OR. I think Washinton state had a very good healthcare environment even before Obamacare, but don't remember the details. People like Austin, although it sounds like it's for the young and it is undeniably surrounded by Texas, after all.

But what happened to Cuenca, which sounds very appealing? I liked the Ecuadoreans very much when I visited and the food is great. Spanish is a lot easier than Thai. Buenos Aires has always interested me because it has long been the sweet spot for expats with a high standard of living and low cost as well as having the urban advantages. It's now almost 10 pesos to the dollar. Very cheap. Before their crisis in 2001/2002 it had parity with the dollar.

Encouraging to see the Koreans criticize their government legally and peacefully. That's why the Koreans have a democracy.

Not hard to understand. Safety is just another luxury not widely available in relatively poor countries.

Star Member, I don't disagree but I'm referring to a foreign deposit account where as my money comes in an USD. I transfer my USD at will depending on the exchange rate.

But most of us transfer into a BBK Bank baht account, not a USD account. For baht accounts there is no $250 minimum balance requirement.

It it an option? At the airport, for instance?

Anyone know the length of the combined BTS/MRT system now and with the Purple Line?

^^^ Because they object to a marketplace of varying ideas. They want only what they agree with to be aired.

In a free society it's important to let all views get aired.

Cheers.

The protestors are not in any way objecting to a marketplace of ideas. No one is saying that Trump should be locked for his opinion or that his books should be burned.

They are using moral suasion, not force, to persuade the tv program not to give Trump that particular national platform to promote his ideas which the tv program is free to grant, but to which Trump has no right. Respect for freedom of speech does not oblige citizens to stand by passively or silently in the face opinions to which they object.

Suppose the shoe were on the other foot and and Bernie Sanders were invited to the VFW to present his recommendation that Ed Snowden be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, a policy which I am guessing you would oppose. Would you believe that you should not be allowed to march peaceably down to the local VFW hall with a sign calling for Snowden to be tried for treason instead? It makes no sense. The street protest is part of the marketplace of ideas, too, otherwise free speech could only be exercised in tv studios.

Dozens of protesters held signs and chanted Saturday evening as they protested freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.

They are lucky to live in a country that allows freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to do what they are doing. They just don't understand that the same freedoms apply to people they disagree with.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to be disagreeable or we wouldn't need the freedom. They would take those freedoms from the media and from Trump which would be the ultimate travesty.

They just don't get it.

Cheers.

I don't think you get it actually.

No one is denying that Trump has the right to speak about his ideas. However, he does not have a right to be paid to do on network TV. Government suppression of Trump's speech that would indeed be a violation of his First Amendment rights, but no one is calling for that. They have the right to request the program not hire Trump and the right to request they hire someone else whose views they support. Neither is an impingement on Trump's rights.

Freedom of speech certainly includes the right to be offensive, but as well the right to oppose the ideas of others. If citizens can not request others to turn away from ideas they oppose, of what else could freedom of speech consist?

RAID 5 can prevent data loss if a single disk fails in an array of disks.. However it is not really suitable for hoe use in its standard format.

I use a free software application called SnapRAID which is designed for people running media server. I have 4 data disks and a parity disk in my array and it has saved my data several times when drives have failed..

Snap raid allows the use of mixed drive capacities and does not use a special data format so disks can be added to the arrary without reformattingand. Even without the software instaled the data is still accessable. It also means that in the unlikely event of simultanious failure of 2 drives, it does not mean you loose all data as you would in a standard RAID 5 setup. However SnapRAID must be run on a regular basis. Of course SnapRAID does have its disadvantages and those interested should do their own research.

Many people like RAID 1 mirroring, but in my opinion, this has no advantage over backups and can even be worse because a corrupted file will be mirrored so there is no recovery whereas a proper backup system should reduce this risk

I recommend RAID 1 for ease of recovery after disk failure. I recently had our RAID 10 configuration fail with 2 out of 4 drives unreadable. I tried to recover it myself with available software without success so I had to give it to a data recovery company here who were able to recover the files partially, but because they did not understand the HFS+ file system used by OSX not all information was recovered. Had the array been configured as RAID 1 I would just have been able to mount the readable disks using a SATA to USB device and get all my files. The only advantage of RAID 10 is improved performance, but that difference is unlikely to matter for home users. Live and learn.

Only RAID 6 is designed to cope with multiple disk failures, and when this happens if the faulty disk is replaced the array should be rebuilt automatically (maybe a user command or 2 required to start the proces. As stated above regular hardware RAID arraays use striping where the data is written across all disks and thus is very difficult to recover outside of the array controller.

The important thing when using any RAID array is to replace any faulty disks as soon as possible and rebuild the array.

The software RAID implenentation I have mentioned to many times does allow for the disks to be accessed normally so even if multiple disks fail the data on the others is still available but the data on the failed disks cannot be recovered after multiple suimultanious failures. This is because it does not use striping but just builds the array byy collecting data from the regular disks and saving the recovery information on the 'parity' disk.

RAID 1 is mirrored, but not striped. My configuration was two RAID 10 volumes, each with two mirrored and striped disks. So, even though I was not able to access two of the disks the data from the two I could read could have been recovered simply by mounting the disks if they had been only mirrored and not striped.

In the event the data recovery company was able to read all the disks by using hardware recovery tools not available to me.

RAID 5 can prevent data loss if a single disk fails in an array of disks.. However it is not really suitable for hoe use in its standard format.

I use a free software application called SnapRAID which is designed for people running media server. I have 4 data disks and a parity disk in my array and it has saved my data several times when drives have failed..

Snap raid allows the use of mixed drive capacities and does not use a special data format so disks can be added to the arrary without reformattingand. Even without the software instaled the data is still accessable. It also means that in the unlikely event of simultanious failure of 2 drives, it does not mean you loose all data as you would in a standard RAID 5 setup. However SnapRAID must be run on a regular basis. Of course SnapRAID does have its disadvantages and those interested should do their own research.

Many people like RAID 1 mirroring, but in my opinion, this has no advantage over backups and can even be worse because a corrupted file will be mirrored so there is no recovery whereas a proper backup system should reduce this risk

I recommend RAID 1 for ease of recovery after disk failure. I recently had our RAID 10 configuration fail with 2 out of 4 drives unreadable. I tried to recover it myself with available software without success so I had to give it to a data recovery company here who were able to recover the files partially, but because they did not understand the HFS+ file system used by OSX not all information was recovered. Had the array been configured as RAID 1 I would just have been able to mount the readable disks using a SATA to USB device and get all my files. The only advantage of RAID 10 is improved performance, but that difference is unlikely to matter for home users. Live and learn.

I can see that the distinction to which I was trying to draw your attention is demonstrably above your pay grade, I can only wish you success in all your future endeavors.

And welcome to my ignore list.

In general I am in strongly favor of government regulation and labor unions, and feel that the new, gig economy works very much to the detriment of workers. Comparing Uber to the taxi business, however, the benefits of regulations seem scant.

You've made a great case, and I agree that many regulations regarding taxis are from another era and no longer serve the public.

But what happens when nobody has to buy a hack license, barrier to entry is virtually nil and 150,000 more folks in NYC or London get the urge to make a little money "sharing the ride"?

I'll give you a hint. Google Phuket (or Samui) taxi for a sneak preview...

To say that the current state of regulations may not be productive is not to recommend that the local government therefore abdicate its regulatory role entirely to trust in the wisdom of the marketplace. The new technology provides new opportunities. The number of Uber/Lift/etc. cars currently on the road could be monitored in real time and controlled for instance with short-term, dynamic licenses, like ip leases from a DHCP server, without imposing stiff licensing costs that disadvantage the individual driver.

However, the problem that NYC and probably most major cities face is not too many taxi/Uber cars, but too many private cars. Private cars in the US are used on the average only one hour a day. In the big cities they occupy parking space all day and represent an under-utilized resource. Far better to discourage private cars from entering the city to provide road space to an expanded fleet of Uber-type cars which would be a far more efficient way to augment the public transportation system at the same time as reducing the demand for parking space.

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

If you haven't learned to read by this point in life I am not going to be able to teach you. No facts are in dispute. The question is not what punishments should be appropriate given the losses, etc. etc. It comes down to a simple point. At what point was the plane actually endangered? If, as appears to be the case given the story so far, the plane was never in any actual danger then he cannot reasonably be charged with endangering the plane. He might justifiably be charged with other illegal acts, but not endangering the plane.

You are in the position of Humpty Dumpty who says, "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean--no more and no less." Only the law does not work that way. "Endangering" means endangering and not every possible action to do with a plane that you think should be punished.

I need to learn how to read? One who critcises in such a manner needs to look at one's self first. A fine example of your reading skills, tell me what was said about facts being in dispute or questioning the punishment? Your words not mine, I questioned the endangerment aspect, which you disputed and I will tell you again that this is what he was charged with under Thai avaition law

If you're not happy then complain to the authorities. What you thoughts are about the law will not make one iota here. And what I said about the facts is that you did not present any to justify your statement, so please if you want to criticise at least get it right. So he should be charged with a criminal act, tell me which one, under Thai avaition law would be applicable, seeing you're the professed expert on the law? As I said, we will have to agree to disagree.

But just for your benefit endangering means a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune.. Yes, a possibility, the meaning being a thing that may happen or be the case. Who suggested I think that anything possible to do with a plane shouild be punished? Not I, just you adding words that mean nothing. And pray tell just how does the law work, in your mind at least? Can you answer anything asked of you,or will you just go off on your own tangent again?

If you were a competent reader you would grasp the important difference between actually endangering someone and merely claiming to do so. If, for instance, I threaten to shoot you while brandishing a loaded 9mm Glock I have endangered you. If, on the other hand, I threaten to shoot you while pointing a water pistol that is a convincing, but harmless, replica of a 9mm Glock then, although I may well have commit some crime for which I ought to be punished, I have not in actual point of fact endangered you at all despite your reasonable belief at the time that I have. So the applicable charge would be something other than criminal endangerment. You insistently confuse possibility with the appearance of possibility, which causes me to wonder about your reading level.

In the case at hand the accused guy is not a terrorist and should not be treated as a terrorist, whatever else he may be guilty of. Thailand unfortunately is a country that does not enjoy the rule of law and whose judicial standards frequently beggar belief as, perhaps, in this case.

It's interesting that there are 10 votes for the schools that use the Union method, and 1 vote for all non-Union method schools. Whilst the Union method is dated and pretty boring, it still comes out on top. Nothing better around at the moment.

The reason for that has nothing to do with the quality of the Union method. In order to get "accreditation" from the Thai Department of Education, which among other benefits provides the school with a VAT tax exemption, the school must teach from an approved curriculum which is, apparently uniquely, the Union method. Chulalongkorn is an exception probably because it is a university. If a non-university school were to teach from the Chulalongkorn curriculum they would not be accredited.

It is not true that there is nothing better available at the moment as I have pointed out above.

Odd that no one knows anything about this program apparently. Looks good on paper even if the English-language description is a bit over the top. I wonder if the program has folded already. If it has been in operation for six years by now there should be someone at ThaiVisa who has studied there.

I do hear that Thai universities are starting more of these Thai for foreigner programs in order to generate income mainly from the flood of Chinese students, even though the courses, like this one, are taught in English initially.

Uber is an interesting question. In New York City the price for a medallion (license for the cab itself) has dropped substantially, but even more importantly the number of transactions has crashed. So, there may not even be a market at all for medallions at this point. The price before Uber was over $1 million. So, that should be an advantage for Uber since the need for a medallion provided no benefit at all to the taxi-riding public on the one hand, and on the other hand the capital requirement meant that medallions were almost entirely owned by large companies. The benefits of regulation for the public were few: taxi drivers had no better skills than other drivers, indeed they are regarded as more aggressive and dangerous. The regulations did not protect the drivers either since over time the companies switched them from being employees to being independent contractors leasing the cars on a daily basis with no benefits. The requirement for insurance, a potentially important benefit for the public, could in some places be effectively eliminated by posting a legal bond which was however entirely inadequate.

I have not had bad experiences with cabbies here in BKK, although I know that others have. My few Uber rides have been excellent. However, I cannot see how it pays since the driver has to absorb all of the costs of the car, gas & maintenance, and wasted cruising time. It certainly would not make financial sense to buy a car in order to become an Uber driver, but probably no one ever does that. They all have the cars already so driving is just a way to pick up a little extra income. But it appears to be very little.

In general I am in strongly favor of government regulation and labor unions, and feel that the new, gig economy works very much to the detriment of workers. Comparing Uber to the taxi business, however, the benefits of regulations seem scant.

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

If you haven't learned to read by this point in life I am not going to be able to teach you. No facts are in dispute. The question is not what punishments should be appropriate given the losses, etc. etc. It comes down to a simple point. At what point was the plane actually endangered? If, as appears to be the case given the story so far, the plane was never in any actual danger then he cannot reasonably be charged with endangering the plane. He might justifiably be charged with other illegal acts, but not endangering the plane.

You are in the position of Humpty Dumpty who says, "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean--no more and no less." Only the law does not work that way. "Endangering" means endangering and not every possible action to do with a plane that you think should be punished.

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

Providing false information thus endangering the safety of an aircraft, how? The false information relates to his allegedly having a bomb, therefore by providing such information he has endangered the aircraft. Who, at the time, knew if he did or didn't. Since he made the statement, it had to be accepted he had, until it was proven otherwise, thus authorities had to err on the side of caution thererore until it was cleared, the aircraft remained endangered, that's how. Hoping that has enlightened you?

I agree that it's reasonable to seek compensation. Who is supposed to pay for the losses incurred, the airline because of some idiot's utterances. And let the criminal charges stay also, maybe some time inside, a fine and compensation will start acting as a deterrent to show the many idiot's who do this world wide, almost daily, that it's not worth it.. And I don't think it's over the top, it's about time Thailand woke up and started implementiing heavy fines and some gaol time for everything criminal. B100 and B500 teaches no one anything. Changes have to start somewhere. Let's hope this might be the start. One can dream, I know.

That's complete gobbledygook. Yes, he caused financial loss to the airline and even to the passengers for which he should be held liable, but the aircraft itself was never in any danger at all. Saying something that isn't true can cause an airplane to explode?

The only thing goobledgook is your logic. Of course sayng something unture cannot cause a plane to explode but what of the unkknown? How were they to know there was not a bomb in his possession at the time. They had to accept he did until they ascertained there was, infact, no bomb. So your saying that despite his allegations there was no possible danger to the plane or it's passengers because it was later discovered that he lied.

So as far as you're concerned any one on a plane can state that they have a bomb but as long as it's untrue, despite the chaos created, it's ok and they should not be charged with any offence let alone endangement of an aircraft. It's true, only in Thailand, truly amazing.

Wow. Reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit, is it? I didn't claim that he broke no laws and should be allowed just to walk away. I specifically stated that it would be reasonable to hold him liable for the financial losses that he caused to the airline and even to the other passengers.

Nor did I say that the airline authorities should not have treated it as a credible threat. They should have and they did. But the guy was not charged with "giving the impression of endangering an aircraft" or "claiming falsely to endanger an aircraft." He was charged with "(actually) endangering an aircraft" which he apparently never did.

Do you often find the world unaccountably surprising?

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

Providing false information thus endangering the safety of an aircraft, how? The false information relates to his allegedly having a bomb, therefore by providing such information he has endangered the aircraft. Who, at the time, knew if he did or didn't. Since he made the statement, it had to be accepted he had, until it was proven otherwise, thus authorities had to err on the side of caution thererore until it was cleared, the aircraft remained endangered, that's how. Hoping that has enlightened you?

I agree that it's reasonable to seek compensation. Who is supposed to pay for the losses incurred, the airline because of some idiot's utterances. And let the criminal charges stay also, maybe some time inside, a fine and compensation will start acting as a deterrent to show the many idiot's who do this world wide, almost daily, that it's not worth it.. And I don't think it's over the top, it's about time Thailand woke up and started implementiing heavy fines and some gaol time for everything criminal. B100 and B500 teaches no one anything. Changes have to start somewhere. Let's hope this might be the start. One can dream, I know.

That's complete gobbledygook. Yes, he caused financial loss to the airline and even to the passengers for which he should be held liable, but the aircraft itself was never in any danger at all. Saying something that isn't true can cause an airplane to explode?

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

And that's not since 9/11. That's since the Palestinians started hijacking and blowing up planes in the early '70s. I remember specifically some time in the early 70s a flight attendant on a US airliner admonishing a passenger for joking about bombs. Federal law against even joking about it.

The question remains: at what point was the aircraft in any danger?

I admit that my main problem with Thai is a certain lack of motivation. My Thai teacher I met at AUA, which is known as a rigourous and qualified program in Chiang Mai wher eI took the basic course. Myself, not her, suggested ad-hoc private lessons so could she get a little extra dosh. I know this is unethical and against any school policy but these things happen and it was a long time ago. I'm sure her qualifications are excellent and any failure to progress is solely my responsibility.

I learned Japanese through sheer force of will with high motivation. The initial learning curve is steep requiring much memorization. I struggled with first 2 years of university Japanese is the US and got weak grades. This is before apps and iPhones and I still rememver lugging backpack around with heavy dictionaries. I was told I would never succeed by certain people. Then I went on a 6 week internship in a trading company in Shinjuku prior to 3rd year. Came back and I was a top student in the program. After graduation I moved to Japan and stayed on a 2 year working contract.

Thank you for your inspiration. I'm sure IF I apply myself to study I can succeed at Thai in the future as well.

I doubt if your AUA teacher was qualified, especially if you didn't actually know her qualifications. AUA in Bangkok is distinguished by their adherence to a junk theory of second language acquisition so I wouldn't have high expectations for their teachers, although I suppose anything is possible.

If you learned Japanese you can certainly learn Thai, but the difficulties are different ones as you know. I thank god that Indian culture got here before the Chinese and I don't have to memorize ideograms. Motivation, not intelligence or music talent or anything else, is the main limiting factor since learning a language is just a slog. The ones who succeed are highly motivated, all of them. Language study is a very fair undertaking: the more you put in, the more you get out. And then the more you know, the more interesting this new environment turns out to be. But then that's always true, isn't it?

Good luck. Don't give up. You can do it.

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

I understand their response which was entirely correct, but now they are charging him with endangering the safety of an aircraft. Did the evacuation, of which he was the cause, endanger the aircraft? Since there was no bomb it would appear that the aircraft was never in any danger although a loss was indeed imposed on the airline by his stupid remark.