#ASIANPAINT - Pic 1-Weekly chart Price B/O & Retest of TL joining major tops since 2015 - Now Price is on verge of Bullish ABC B/O
Pic 2 Short term chart gave Bullish ABC B/O and FT - Low Pole & O at same level - chart is Bullish
Lets watch how it moves @flyingvikas129
More from Asianpaints
Asian Paints took a bounce exactly from the level given on 21st October.
It has string resistance at 3200, so fresh up-move will be confirmed only when it opens above 3220-3230 levels
#ASIANPAINT
#DKBPositional https://t.co/Q6fTbK5VHM
It has string resistance at 3200, so fresh up-move will be confirmed only when it opens above 3220-3230 levels
#ASIANPAINT
#DKBPositional https://t.co/Q6fTbK5VHM
Asian Paints also at crucial support line, bulls desperately need a reversal here, else it'll go in hibernation..... pic.twitter.com/VTfaMfpHXs
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) October 21, 2021
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?