CONF, with all due respect that's a narrow way of looking at things.
Beginning with the "iron cross" indicator, an alternative to your "don't want the PNF to see what the PF is doing" could be expressed as a desire to avoid visual distractions from the primary instruments during a crucial phase of flight. As many have pointed out, the ADI is perfectly capable of showing the aircraft's response to inputs.
I'd imagine in fact, that before changing the sidestick indicator removal from 100ft RA to weight-on-wheels, they canvassed pilots to find out how many of them were using the indicator after rotation and found most weren't. The indicator itself was only ever intended to be a method for cross-checking control movement during pre-flight and taxi as far as I know.
We've done this dance for years, you and I - I'm aware of your position and understand it, although I've never been 100% sure of your motives or agenda. As I said to Lyman, I'm not advocating sidestick over yoke - both have pros and cons, even for pilots. There are hypotheticals which favour yokes (which you've already pointed out), and there are hypotheticals which favour non-connected sidesticks (including artificial feel unit failure and incapacitation scenarios in which the incapacitated pilot is restricting yoke movement - how do you get their yoke free in a two-pilot aircraft without leaving your seat and letting go of your yoke?).
Aviation will progress one way or the other, and some aviators will be resistant to change - the Wright Brothers considered aileron panels inferior to their wing-warping technique, many pilots resisted the introduction of the autopilot and CVR and many were concerned about the introduction of widebodies which relied entirely on hydraulics with no cable backup (notwithstanding the fact that cable backup was impossible with flight surfaces the size of those on the 747, L-1011 and DC-10).
Airbus's electronic sidestick design was no different in that respect, however over the years its reliability has been proven and the chorus of dissent has lessened. The simple truth is that preference for one over the other is personal and subjective, just as I said to Lyman.
Sidestick aside, some target Airbus because they feel that the introduction of advanced computer technology and advance of automation has led to the atrophy of manual handling skills - maybe it has, but Airbus aren't the only ones following that path. In fact there was a greater advance in computer control and automation technology between the 727 and 757 than there was between the 757 and A320. I suspect Boeing would have done away with the cable backup in the 737NG but for the fact that it would put the "grandfathering" certification clause in jeopardy.
Things move on. Both Airbus and Boeing have proven their designs as successful, reliable and safe - the fact that they've both stuck to their guns means that pilots have a choice. One thing that's always puzzled me is that despite your distrust for the Airbus design, you still fly the type. I don't know who you fly for, but I feel sure that they or others you're well-qualified for have yoke-equipped types. If you feel the design is a detriment to safety, why do you go to work in it every day?