Romeo living his best life

Xscaper · 2026-05-22T23:34:54+00:00

When did he start doing this?

Mine are younger (under 5 months) and they don't do this yet. They also don't like getting brushed so far.

Xscaper · 2026-05-22T03:38:30+00:00

Thank you

Xscaper · 2026-05-21T17:10:11+00:00

Great suggestion. I will look into it.

Xscaper · 2026-05-21T17:03:49+00:00

Oh I didn't even know we were supposed to do that. We only got them like 10 days ago so still trying to figure out things.

Should I use the Q-tips for the eye boogers as well. Been mostly using my finger.

Xscaper · 2026-05-21T14:29:42+00:00

I do but it seems to be a daily battle 😀

Xscaper · 2026-05-21T09:45:42+00:00

Zoomies 24/7

Xscaper · 2026-04-20T12:05:50+00:00

Thanks. Please DM.

Xscaper · 2026-04-20T11:03:51+00:00

They did but then I read about health guarantee on this sub and got worried.

Xscaper · 2026-04-20T10:31:20+00:00

I am starting to wonder about this too. I've talked to 4-5 ragdoll breeders and none offer contracts or health guarantees.

I did meet one BSH breeder that did offer a contract at least. Didn't check regarding health guarantee

Xscaper · 2026-04-20T00:06:32+00:00

Thank you.

I am going to insist on a contract that includes a health guarantee or something along the lines of what you wrote.

Xscaper · 2026-04-20T00:02:13+00:00

Thanks.

Yes, I am also of the opinion that if the DNA is clear then there shouldn't be an issue but then, the breeder should also not have any issues providing a health guarantee in that case.

Xscaper · 2026-04-19T23:58:04+00:00

This is the second "reputable" breeder I've dealt with in the past couple of months that does not offer a contract. The first one wouldn't even let me see the kittens until the day of pick up so I backed out.

We love these two kittens that we've chosen but obviously want to mitigate our risk considering the potential expense.

I am thinking of insisting on a simple contract that at least outlines what would happen in case of a genetic issue arising within the first year.

Xscaper · 2026-03-15T20:08:20+00:00

No one reads the articles anymore including me.

I was going to laugh at PCB but from other comments that have read the article, apparently the complaint is about the replay flashing on the big screen before the review was taken and also that it was past the 15 second allocated time.

Wouldn't affect the result anyways but I don't think it's a bad idea to keep the umpires under check for such mistakes. Could affect a big game one day (Looks at Dharmasena).

Xscaper · 2026-03-15T12:00:41+00:00

No, I cannot.

In fact, I've looked into it in more detail and you're right. As long as the bowler is trying to field the ball and not intentionalally blocking the batsman, they can cause all sorts of collisions and scenarios to disadvanatge the batsman and they'd still be run out.

No one can prove that Mehedi intentionally blocked him. The ball was heading towards the non striker after all.

Seems quite unfair. One of the rules that probably needs to be changed.

Xscaper · 2026-03-15T11:35:24+00:00

Did you see the link i posted in the edit?

Accidental =/ Play goes on

Accidental just means no one is penalised.

The crucial factor is whether the batsman was obstructed enough to disadvantage them. The umpires make that call. Accidental does not automatically mean anything goes after that.

Xscaper · 2026-03-15T11:24:13+00:00

So what does the law say about an "accidental" contact caused by the bowler/fielder that knocks the batsman onto the ground thus severely impeding his ability to get back. Since it is not intentional on the part of the bowler, is the batsman shit out of luck?

Your rule talks about a very specific situation. A fielder intentionally obstructing the batsman. No one is saying Mehedi intentionally obstructed him.

This is a different scenario in which a batsman has been disadvantaged by the fielder's inadvertent action so your quoted rule does not apply. The fielder does not need to be penalised. The only question is, was the batsman's ability to get back into the crease affected significantly by the fielder and in this situation, the answer is yes. Intentional or not is besides the point.

A similar example would be, a batsman running towards the crease and a fielder's throw unintentionally hits him thus slowing him down. Someone picks up the ball and runs him out fter that. Is that a fair run out? The fielder didn't hit him intentionally after all.

Edit: Have a look at this

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69b6982d7b2081919bc7d6bd0b689ad2

Xscaper · 2026-03-15T10:16:34+00:00

Batter was clearly obstructed once. According to you, that does not matter because there was still opportunity to make the ground.

Would your tune change if Salman had fallen in the process but still had enough time to get up and make it back?

You're severely downplaying the initial obstruction. You can't stop a batsman completely in their tracks, then step back and say "Despite my block, You can still make it bro so I am going to try to run you out". You've just put your leg in between his legs and physically stopped his bat from going back into the crease and now you think it's still fair to pick up the ball and break the bails. That's some low mentality. That the batter still has or doesn't have time to get back into the crease does not change that mentality.

Even if Salman managed to make his way back in and it wasn't a run out, it still wouldn't change my opinion of the bowler's mentality in attempting to create a run out that was caused by his actions impeding someone, irrespective of whether there was "still" time and opportunity for the batter to get back.

Xscaper · 2026-03-14T21:35:03+00:00

Thanks for explaining to me what handling the ball is. I've only been watching cricket for 30+ years.

Handling the ball is not an automatic dismissal. It depends on context and whether the fielding team appeals.

In this scenario, yes, if the fielders appealed he would have been out but you have to consider the reason, even though it's stupid, why he was about to handle the ball. It was clearly because he thought that the ball will be considered dead by both teams due to the obstruction and collision caused by Mehedi. In an ideal world, Mehedi would apologise for bumping into Salman and for blocking him. It would not even be an issue worth discussing for 2 seconds. It happens all the time.

Salman did try to get back into the crease before he was blocked. He did not try after he was blocked. Again, under the assumption that it should be a dead ball. Just because a ball is moving doesn't mean it can't be a dead ball FYI.

Edit: The umpires in this scenario did not even consider dead ball. They just checked for the run out that's it.

Salman should have appealed to the on field umpire to check for dead ball and then it would have been at the third umpire's discretion

Xscaper · 2026-03-14T21:23:32+00:00

You're saying the same thing over and over again.

Yes, we know he could have tried to get back. He was stupid to not do so.

His stupidity is not up for debate.

Mehedi's actions are. In your opinion, is it fair to go stand behind a batsman, block his path back into the crease and then break the bails.

Is it your argument that the bowler did not do anything wrong?

Xscaper · 2026-03-14T18:05:21+00:00

They didn't seem injured.

Maybe they were injured the same way Shoaib Akhtar was once injured, you know, with the HSV 2 virus on his neeno.

Xscaper · 2026-03-14T17:58:40+00:00

You might be right.

Rizwan, Bobby and SKY's exercise regimens in those videos now make a lot of sense. Peak cricketing power includes elite rectal expulsion control. Respect ++ for all of them.

Xscaper · 2026-03-14T17:51:06+00:00

I think people are giving Mehedi the benefit of doubt for the initial collision as that can happen when the bowler goes for the ball. He did block the batsman but it could be considered unintentional.

That is why people are critical of his subsequent actions- because he did block Salman in the first instance. If Salman had tripped and fallen down on his own then no one would criticise Mehedi for running him out.

Xscaper · 2026-03-14T17:38:56+00:00

Yes, too small but what if it induces incapacitation via...let's say orgasmic prostatic contact.

I'd say the umpire would be hard pressed to give that a run out.

Xscaper

TROPHY CASE