Hello to everybody, I'll try to answer all your questions.
But first of all I would like to apologize with all of you: I speak fluently (in addition to my language, Italian) only French, so I have to respond, to translate, to post on these forums by my co-worker, then see the answers and repeat this process.
Moreover I'm often absent for business trips (now I'm reading from Mexico).
So it is very difficult for me to follow this thread and I can't be timely, in replies, as I would like.
As for "who I am" my CV is available online in English at http://www.lucapoma.info/en/docs/shortbio.pdf
I would like to clarify to avoid confusion that the term "manipulation" - which you can read in a passage in my curriculum - used in the Italian language does not necessarily have a negative meaning (for this reason I have placed quotation marks), this term mean (also) "change the form, as you do with your hands when you working with clay. "
The term "stakeholder" does not mean "shareholder" in Italian. One shareholder is a "shareholder" (he owns shares) while stakeholders means "any public potentially interested / interesting for an organization. "
Turning to questions of substance, my personal position on Scientology is detailed in the "open letter" that I published in Italy, available in English at the URL http://www.dimarzio.it/srs/modules/mydo ... hp?lid=184
This letter is a reasoned organization criticism , and I don’t think to add anymore. It can be shared or not,it can be considered too soft or not, but it is my genuine opinion. I want to stress that a a strong Scientology criticism, in my opinion, is more valuable if it is done by someone like me –someone that has had an experience in some ways disappointing in Scientology- that doesn’t "hate" the organization”: it is obvious that those who have much rancour against Scientology, or everyone that think that Scientology is totally rubbish, criticizes it. It is less obvious that people like me, who even though doesn’t share much of what Scientology is, doesn’t think that it is "all the evil in the world"critics Scientology (even with this you can or cannot agree but it is my personal point of view). The world is not just white or black ("praise or denounce of Hubbard") there are many shades of gray, as taught us the fuzzy logic of fuzzy sets, but not for that reason this criticism is less strong.
One detail, to reply to an user's question: With regard to my admission to Scientology’s courses, ten years ago I was a consultant in public relations and communications and I wrote articles and essays, but I was not yet a journalist (in Italy for journalists need to do an exam and have an authorization by the State) so I never lied to Scientology by claiming to be a journalist while I was not. However, the suspiciousness of Scientology towards journalists is another indicator of poor mental health of the organization (even if I think that Scientology does not matter so much that you are a journalist, but if you're a journalist who is there to do a negative investigation on them).
Returning to the paper published in this forum, the purpose of this essay - which was written and originally published in one of the most famous italian review of public relations and communication - was not to criticize the doctrine of Scientology, but its aim is to criticize communication and public relations techniques of Scientology. Many Critics were launched against the doctrine of Scientolgy , someone more serious, others less well-grounded, but they have a high degree of subjectivity: who is in favor of Scientology will deny that this is true while who are against these charges support them . Criticism of their communication techniques, instead, is objective and indisputable, because if you violate a technical rule universally recognized of communication means that you are violating this rule beyond what you might think about the doctrine. Ironically,Scientology could be the best religion in the world (not, in my opinion) but it still be committing a serious error if it violates the rules of propriety in public relations or communications. At least this is my personal point of view.
I should add that I think this field of research - more objective than doctrinal one, which is also very interesting - it's been too little studied in the past: should revail more firmly, especially inside the journalistic community - the lack of "authenticity" of an organization that -only apparently, - displays its authenticity.
Furthermore, the fact that the scriptures of Scientology regarding public relations and, however flawed and outdated, cannot be altered by Scientologists is questionable: the world changes, and even where the doctrine would remain unchanged, the "techniques" through which the organization relates to the outside world should be discounted(up-date). The fact that this up-grade doesn't happen is a further demonstration of the stupidity of this organization, and also violation of the doctrine of Scientology itself, where it says that every organism (living or social)must act to achieve the highest level of survival (and Scientology in this sense doesn't doing it, because the modern world requires transparency that Scientology doesn't offer).
I conclude with an update on the blitz of Turin: the ordinary judiciary has decided to close the case, because in spite of the blitz was not possible to gather enough evidence on the existence of investigation files of personalities, journalists and judges.
These files certainly exist, but from sources related to former officials of the department 20 interviewed by me, of course, are not kept in the Org, and then when the police carried out the raid did not found them . The only exception was my file that as someone of you could remember, the Church claimed to have destroyed while still preserved one copy of that: then, the dispute at law will continue at the National guarantor of Privacy, which will provide reasonable sanctions against the Church. It would be more desirable to have a stronger action of censorship, but since they didn’t the files - apparently kept in members of Department 20 and Sientologist’s private houses - this was not possible. However it was a useful action of pressure and control: I hope that the Church understands that it can not do what it want and that the principle "the end justifies the means" can not be applied as a justification for systematically violations of the law.