One way it works is to allege or lie by implication. That way, you can deny responsibility for it by acknowledging the actual statement but denying the implication.
He's an example of how Simpson does it (and he does it a lot)
He is implying a connection between me and JaneRavenQuantrill and the SaveConfedMusem twitter account and whoever runs it (WeLoveTheSouth) so he can claim that I agree with the anti-veteran statements (and other things) on the latter's twitter feed. He's implying a cyber-cabal between the three of us, conspiring to promote disrespect for veterans (and worse) via the SaveConfedMuseum twitter feed. But since he did it by implication, and didn't actually say the words, he can indignantly proclaim, "I didn't say that!"
Replying to a comment at XRoads, Sick Simpson sez: "How was I able to find this site? Simple. One of the people who Connie Chastain follows, 'JaneRavenQuantrill,' sent a tweet to two bloggers, including me, drawing attention to it. Chastain doesn’t want you to know that."
I don't want people to know what? That I follow JaneRavenQuantrill? So what? I follow 412 people, nearly all of whom I do not know personally. I don't care who knows it. Most of them are connected with writing and publishing in some way.
Though I'm largely unimpressed with celebrity, one person I follow is an actor, Ryan Carnes, who appears to be a typical Hollywood hedonist. I don't agree with a LOT of what Carnes says and does. I don't agree with or approve of (or watch) his movie and TV portrayals of homosexuals and his personal promotion of homosexuality (though he is, or claims to be, heterosexual) -- but I think he's cute, or used to be (though he's not aging well), and I enjoyed his acting in The Phantom. (Carnes, back when he was cute, was the inspiration for Chris Dupree in Smallfoot.)
So trying to prove something by who I follow is just another example of Simpson's freakish mental processes and unethical motives.
Moreover, why would I care how he found that Twitter account, or care whether people know that? If I had cared enough to give it any thought, I would have assumed he found it on one of his tip-toeing expeditions looking for stuff to trash Southerners with (he implies an admission of "examining" the feed) but only because he's acknowledged said tip-toeing in the past. But this is his gargantuan ego talking here, as I couldn't care less how he found it.
What's interesting, though, is that at the time Simpson "found" and posted the twitter feed, I had never heard of it, or WeLoveTheSouth or JaneRavenQuantrill. I learned about all of them from his ridiculous post (and the bizarre comments) about it.
By posting about who follows who and the finding of that site, he's implying a connection between us at the time of his post, or before. In fact, Twitter sent me a notice that JaneRavenQuantrill began following me on Nov 12, a day after Simpson's bizarre blog post. This is a prime example of Simpson-style plausible deniability. If you say, "They weren't following each other at the time of your post!" he can say, "I never said they were." (Interestingly, in the same notice, Twitter told me Corey Meyer had begun following me.... Simpson didn't mention that.)
Of course, it is strongly implied, and in the minds of his gullible peanut gallery, the non-existent connection becomes well-established.
What was the point of mentioning me at all? He could have said, "How was I able to find this site? “JaneRavenQuantrill” sent a tweet to me drawing attention to it," and that would have answered the question. But, of course, answering the question wasn't his priority. Trashing people, denigrating, bullying and harassing are his priorities.
(In a later post's comment thread, Simpson sez, "Oh … and by the way … it was one of Connie’s Twitter followers, whom Connie follows, who brought the Twitter account in question to my attention. That’s how I learned about it. But she won’t tell you that. Of course not. What else would a liar do?"
At the time he posted about the twitter feed, I'd never heard of it, or its creator, or the person who told him about it. So what he's really saying is this: When Twitter notified me that JaneRavenQuantrill was following me, and I clicked "follow" in return, that click gave me instant and total knowledge of every thing JaneRavenQuantrill had ever brought to anyone's attention.... My gosh, does he read and think through what he writes before he posts it? Only enough to construct it with animosity, denigration, and plausible deniability in mind; but regarding the latter, I guess he let this one slip past him....)A couple of other things to mention: Sez Simpson, "Chastain does not disagree with the content of the site." He can't know that, since I haven't said I either agree or disagree with it. I don't know what comprises most of the content on the feed, so I don't know whether I agree with it or not. More than likely, if I checked it out, I would find I disagreed with some of it, and agreed with some of it. But I can't say for sure without checking it out.
Another look at Simpson's puerile outlook... He tells the commenter, "You ask a lot more questions here than you do of Chastain." How does he know that? How does he know how many questions the commenter, or anyone else, has asked of me? Unless he's now claiming to be omniscient? Or maybe he illegally hacks my email or Facebook or other private accounts?
He throws this in, "I simply note that you want people to explain things to you, but you don’t want to explain things to them. One can conclude that you feel compelled to hide something for good reason."
Well, that depends on who "One" is. If "One" is Brooks Simpson, "One" can conclude all sorts of bizarre things based not on truth, logic or facts, but on his own animosity, his desire to denigrate, harass, bully and persecute.