#BHEL 57 to 73 in 4 trading days🛩️🛩️.
Around 73 / 74 - is the first target - next targets around 110.
Remember :Keeping a stop is always important if one is trading.
@caniravkaria https://t.co/ViHbzJTfQ6
#BHEL looks good for targets of 74+ https://t.co/jrRyXc5FLL pic.twitter.com/KWkzeHSs0D
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) May 6, 2021
More from Dare2Dream
#Dare2Drm
Will post charts of next potential movers tomorrow. Interested.#Dare2Drm
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) July 9, 2021
#HindCopper Stock is coming out of a big consolidation. A move above 147, stock could be headed to 165 (next resistance). If #BseMetals index breaks out, i am expecting levels of 196 again and if that gets taken out, levels of 220. lets see - one step at a time
#Dare2Drm
More from Bhel
It crossed 63, now price action important, if sustains above 63, can possibly head towards 69-75 zone
RSI looking bullish
Not a trading call , academic post https://t.co/0IAjXZ5C88
#BHEL monthly chart, if the stock is able to trade above 60-63 zone, we may see significant upmove in this stock, Monthly RSI is 50+ & moving up.
— Techno Prince (@Trader_souradep) May 10, 2021
Not a trading call, academic post pic.twitter.com/VuBoKJvbmn
Chart wise labeling for 1,2,i,ii for now - counts invalid if falls further to 38. In that case will take a fresh look.
#Nifty #Elliotwave #Chart https://t.co/2mvKfAs3wA
Holding 29, major wave 2 looks over. Will you believe if I say ATH will come? But let's go step my step - 80-130-200 \U0001f600#Bhel pic.twitter.com/3KPCYeDoDp
— Harsh Mehta (@_Harsh_Mehta_) February 4, 2021
You May Also Like
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?