Wow, you mean you are unable to see what zoom setting and/or focus distance
has been set, in case you accidently move them? I can't say I've ever had a
problem setting lenses that way. In fact I miss the depth of field markings
that were on manual lenses, because I often set focus that way.

I can't see why you don't just attach it to the filter first?

But if that's all too difficult for you, then I agree, don't use one.

MrT.

Why not use porarizers that are not quite so crapppy then?
I haven't seen that problem even with the cheap "Arrow" brand filters!

MrT.

That's exactly what I want and it works perfectly. Thanks!

I'm sure there would be more sophisticated ways to do it in Elements, but
that works for my level of expertise.

Nope not even that. The only difference between a circ-pol and a regular pol
is that the circ-pol has an element after the polarising element that
de-polarises the light, this is so AF sensors will still work. You can't do
the crossed polariser trick with circ-pols, because by the time the light
hits the 2nd filter, it is no longer polarised. The 2nd polariser can be a
circ-pol, but the 1st can't be.
Irrespective of the type of filter, you won't get a central pinprick of
light. Remember that this polarising action occurs across the entire face of
the filter, not just in the centre.
When light passes through a polariser, the intensity varies depending on the
angle of polarisation of the light. A polariser doesn't work by letting 0%
of light in unless it's polarisation matches the polariser and if so lets
100% in. The proportion of a ray of light that is passed by the polarising
filter (assuming a perfect filter) is equal to the cosine of angle of the
light's polarisation, relative to the polarising filter's angle. This is
basic vector theory - a ray with intensity of 1 at an angle of 30 degrees,
will have an intensity of .86 (cos 30) in the X direction and .5 (cos 60) in
the Y direction. After passing through the polarisor, only the X direction
remains, so the light ray will have intensity .86 and now be polarised in
the X direction. In theory, if the image was composed of randomly polarised
light and the polariser was perfect, the filter would pass on average 71% of
light through (average of cos(0-90)), or a 1/2 stop light reduction. When
you have crossed polarisers, because the light coming from the first
polariser is polarised in that direction, all of the light is presenting a
vector to the 2nd polariser. If the 2nd polariser is at a 30 deg angle to
the first, the light it passes will only be cos(30 deg) of what it would
otherwise pass, or 86% (0.86). Because the first filter took 71% of the
light away, the combined effect is a about 61% of light making it through,
or almost a 1 stop reduction. Turn the filter to 60 degrees,  and we now
have 50% of 71%, or 35% passing through  (1-1/2 stop reduction).  Go to 89
degrees, and the 2nd filter only passes 1.7% of the 71% of the original
light, so we have 1.2% of the original light coming through, or 6-1/2 stops
lost. At 90 degrees, the 2nd filter passes 0% and so we have a total
blackout.
Now these sums are for a perfect filter, which we don't have. In real life,
the polarising filters don't do a perfect job of blocking polarised light,
so they do let through some light at 90 degrees, even though theory says
they shouldn't. Not only that, but due to the opacity of the glass and
polarising element, they block more than just the polarised light, so they
have a greater reduction to light that is in the polarised direction than
theory says they should. That is why in practice a polariser drops between
1-2 stops of light, when in theory it should only drop 1/2 a stop, and why
you won't get total 100% blockout by using crossed polarisers.