AN EXPERIENCED C210 PLT; LNDG AT MFE; OVERHEARD THE TWR DIRECT AN ACFT ON AN INTERSECTING RWY TO CROSS IN FRONT OF THE RPTR WHEN WAS ON A HALF-MI FINAL.

Narrative

I HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND RWY 18 AND WAS APPROX 1/2 MI FINAL. THE CHEROKEE SIX HAD EXITED RWY 13 AND TWR/GND SAID 'TAXI TO FBO.' THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CH6 TO CROSS RWY 18 (PER DIAGRAM). I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE WAS; AS HANGARS BLOCKED MY VIEW IN THAT DIRECTION; BUT I WAS 1) CONTEMPLATING GOING AROUND; 2) HAVING MY CONCENTRATION BROKEN WHILE LNDG ON A 3000 FT LONG RWY IN GUSTY XWINDS; 3) SPLITTING MY VIEWS TO THE RWY AND TXWY ON MY LNDG ROLLOUT. AS IT TURNED OUT; HE WAS SOME DISTANCE FROM XING RWY 18 AND DIDN'T REACH IT UNTIL I HAD FINISHED MY ROLLOUT AND DONE A 180 DEG TURN TO GO BACK TO THE N END. I CALLED THE TWR AND SUGGESTED THAT THIS METHODOLOGY PROBABLY WAS LEGAL BUT NOT SO SMART AND THEY GOT VERY DEFENSIVE. IF I HAD BEEN UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS A POSSIBLE PROB. THE TWR'S REASONING WAS THAT HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO TAXI AT 90 KTS TO BE A FACTOR TO ME. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AN ACFT SHOULD BE CLRED ONLY TO HOLD SHORT OF THE RWY; THEN CLRED ACROSS WHEN THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE CONFLICT. IN MY OPINION; THEY WERE RIDDING THEMSELVES OF THE NEED TO FURTHER FOLLOW THE PROGRESS OF THE CH6 AND; IN FACT; MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT ME ALTOGETHER; AS I HAD TO CALL THEM ON 1 MI FINAL FOR LNDG CLRNC. I'VE READ TOO MANY STORIES OF RWY INCURSIONS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS MODUS OPERANDI.