In 1997 a concerned inquirer wrote innocently to a Lewis estate employee, “I’m sure you are aware of the petition being circulated by the Discovery Institute at http.//www.discovery.org/lewis/petition.htm”
In the exchange that followed, she received the following claims:
1. “I have never heard of such a petition nor indeed of the URL that you quote.”
2. “Ahh, perhaps you refer to the rather tired debate stimulated by Kathryn Lindskoog, if so, I think you are probably flogging a very dead if not decaying horse.”
3. “I say as much as I like about Walter Hooper, The Dark Tower, and C. S. Lewis Pte Ltd. And have done so in several public fora in the past. I owe you no explanations or information further than that which I have already expressed publicly, and of which your lack of research has evidently left you unaware. I find your suggestions of mendacity impertinent to say the least.”
4. “I am now sure that you are referring to the one that Kathryn made up a while back. The only names you mention that I am familiar with are those of Arthur Clarke and Lyle Dorsett, and if you talk to them, I think you’ll find that they have changed their views somewhat. Lyle may be surprised to find his name on it.”
5. “Are you aware that this debate was carried on at length, in public, by a man called Michael Logsdon? If not, then perhaps you should have looked into it more deeply.”
Needless to say, all the foregoing information was misinformation.
It happens that by the end of 1996, when he first learned about plans for Zondervan’s C. S. Lewis Readers’ Encyclopedia, this same spokesperson for C. S. Lewis Pte informally threatened a court case that would include contributors. Two contributors took him so seriously that one backed out completely and the other came close to doing so.