WWW, no I'm not, and please don't make assumptions on my behalf
I am saying that in order to understand why we do, what we do, why certain errors, omissions, or incidents occur, we first have to understand the methodology and nature of our actions.
Standard phraseology has a place in this, but taken to the en-th degree does "fife" or "five" contribute to an improvement in flight safety?
The recent introduction of an additional "degrees" comment requirement onto radar heading read backs is another classic case of an additional layer of phraseology that serves no real purpose, after all, radar heading instructions are proceeded by the qualifier "fly heading xxx" or "turn left/right onto heading xxx" where does adding "degrees" improve flight safety or SA? All it does is add another layer that gets lost in the fog of 2 or 3 instructions
My argument relates to a practical standpoint, not as you may believe, a disagreement to the basic principles.
24L/R is neither here nor there, how can you be established on a non-existent ILS?