In terms of etiquette; Is it true that whoever smelt it, dealt it?

Or would the competing philosopy of ';Whoever denied, supplied'; also remain valid?





I just want to clear this up, if possible.In terms of etiquette; Is it true that whoever smelt it, dealt it?
That only applies when the source in question was silent but violent.In terms of etiquette; Is it true that whoever smelt it, dealt it?
tehehe, in terms of etiquette... I think that whoever smelt it did not dealt it, for the person who dealt it would not be offended by the smell as much. I think that whoever denied it, supplied it could possibly valid, if they were not the one to bring up the smell in the first place.
Generally, he who smelt it dealt it. However, if it is followed by an immediate denial by a second or third party, then he who denied it supplied it.
I am a firm believer in whoever smelt it dealt it. The main reason being that I have no sense of smell, so by default I never EVER deal ANYTHING.
It is indeed true that ';the smeller is the feller';.
since when absence of proof is the proof of absence ?
I thought it was:





';Whoever rhymed it, chimed it.';
whoever has brown marks on the inside of their underware is the one who did it.
guilty
i would say,


whoever farted: farted.
i would say yes its true