It's approaching hilarity -- like knowing there was a bank robbery around the corner, knowing that the suspect is reported to be wearing the same clothing, same approx. height, features, etc., and then, when stopped by a cop, who asks if you were in the bank, replying, "Well, I won't say that I've never been in that bank" -- knowing full well that it would only increase suspicion to the redline.
The conclusion I'm drawing from scripter's dodges to your question is scripter must be a staffer, otherwise a simple no would suffice as an answer instead of the "artful dodge."
Quite a nutso tactic for some innocent kid who just happened to be walking down the street at that moment in time.
(And, since I always look out for the literal-minded, no, I am NOT comparing Warrenism to bank-robbery.)
The conclusion seems to be that he wants people to believe that he's an operative -- or, that he is, in fact, an operative, but is forbidden to "admit or deny" when questioned, and thus trying to worm his way out of it via cute word games.
What I think is hilarious is reading posts similar to this one and Arizona Carolyn's. It demonstrates that some people may think exactly what they want to think when they only have partial information.
Please rest assured, if it helps, that I'm no Warren staffer and can't imagine that ever happening.