I noticed that you did not answer any of my questions, but merely focused on the fact that I expanded the discussion beyond just your opinion that since I am disagreeing with you, I must be creating strawmen (twice in this thread).
The minion question is no different than any other monster knowledge set of information. The question is where one draws the line. Since role is not mentioned in the Monster Knowledge skill or in the DMG about handing out information, I choose to keep players in the dark about the roles of specific foes.
That's total metagaming information.
You can't expand the discussion into an area where we are in complete agreement, because it's a waste of time. I 100% agree that monster role is not allowed information as part of RAW and also agree it's metagaming information. I never said otherwise.
Other than personal choice (which I can respect) I simply disagree with any other assertion that allowing said metagaming knowledge (specifically minion, and I personally don't give out 'skirmisher', etc.) hurts the game. On the contrary, I say it helps the game and have provided some reasoning why.
However, because you asked, I'll try to respond to your questions and point out examples of where I think your arguments are wrong.
"How so?"
PC's can be heroes now by utilizing their powers more effectively. You don't see heroes in any literary or movie sense waste their most powerful abilities on minions. You shouldn't see that happen in D&D either. Of course, I've said as much already.
"More so than having the players be bored because the DM spoon feeds them."
Identifying "minion" is spoon feeding? Aren't you exaggerating?
"I can see the foes, but do they have poison? Do they cause disease?"
These are direct and specific examples of straw men. If they are not, please identify how my posts on minions (and only minions) could ever possibly identify if someone had poison or disease effects.
"Knowing the exact roles of monsters defeats the purpose of this."
Another straw man. I never said this. I was clear in only ever saying minion. Consider it a Boolean. I agree with not allowing skirmisher or solider because then you might better choose powers vs. defense. A minion, however, is FAR different conceptually. It breaks the game mechanics.
"You claim that giving the players a clear tactical decision is fun, but how so?"
Remember that as I've said, you have to focus on minions. So, these decisions we're talking about are with respect to the combat regarding the minions in play. The minions break game mechanics, nothing else does. Therefore, I think the PC's should be privy to that knowledge. Given this information, then PC's can focus their powers better, conserve dailies and possibly encounters, make better decisions, and therefore be more successful, thereby having more fun.
Failing = sucks
Succeeding = fun
Some form of failing might indeed be fun, but in general I think everyone will agree that success is more fun for the players. These two concepts are not strictly black and white, either. Failing might simply mean using way more healing surges than otherwise (e.g. because all the big powers were wasted on minions instead of the high hit point BBEG). Actually, in this way more grind = failing. What I'm recommending is less grind while I see the opposite point of view as more grind. Do you like grind?
"This issue is similar to cross table talk."
Only with respect to minions. If one player decides to shoot a single-target daily at a minion instead of the BBEG, then I would certainly expect the table talk, and I would similarly expect the DM to advice the novice player about better tactical decisions. On the other hand, the player could be experienced and simply decide to unload for story-based reasons (e.g.) because that minion decided to coup de grace his buddy.