Some one please give me an "Amen!" if they feel as I do

Most of the VOR terminology mentioned in this thread is correct, but that
doesn't make it useful for a beginner.

Yes, if I'm SE of the station with a heading of 300, an OBS setting of 300,
and a TO indication, I am indeed on the 120 degree radial. This is the
"technically correct" way to describe the situation, and when our friend
starts doing IFR stuff, it is also the more intuitive in respect to doing
holds.

But he isn't doing holds, he's navigating, and is probably a student pilot
who is just getting into cross-country stuff. It is FAR more intuitive for
him to think in terms of being on an imaginary extension of the 300 degree
radial. And that too is overcomplicating it. What is wrong with percieving
radials as going through a station instead of as spokes on a wheel? When I
was learning thats how I did it, and all VOR tasks seemed simpler that way,
ESPECIALLY reverse sensing, which is easy to explain if you draw a radial on
paper that extends through the station.

Now I'm learning IFR stuff. Even though the way I thought of VORs wasn't the
official way, it was the way that gave me a thorough understanding of how to
use them for all tasks. This understanding made it easier to transition to
the more accepted way of describing radials, which admittedly makes more
sense for some IFR tasks, like holds fort instance.

Can I get an Amen?