Bajaj Finance : 7165 CMP
7200 - 7220 a small resistance zone, if able to sustain abv than looks good for short term
TGT : 7388 / 7490 / 7605
SL : Below 7050
Views for study purpose only
#Nifty #trading
More from Bajajfinance
Fresh Chart
NSE:BAJFINANCE 7745
1. Breakout in Pole and Flag pattern at ATH
2. Volume and Price Confirming the Breakout
3. Support near 7400-7300 level
4. Next levels to watch 8200-8400
#TechnicalAnalysis #StocktoWatch @nakulvibhor https://t.co/MSBIQPAEL4
NSE:BAJFINANCE 7745
1. Breakout in Pole and Flag pattern at ATH
2. Volume and Price Confirming the Breakout
3. Support near 7400-7300 level
4. Next levels to watch 8200-8400
#TechnicalAnalysis #StocktoWatch @nakulvibhor https://t.co/MSBIQPAEL4
14. Bajfinance- Daily Chart pic.twitter.com/ottmZN2YGh
— Mr. Chartist (@Mr_Chartist) December 24, 2020
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?