If anyone has AL Brooks Price Action eBooks (Trading Price Action Trading Ranges & Trading Price Action Reversals), please DM me.
@kuttrapali @GhoshSubhag @RahulTheVoyager @fno_hacked294
Am counting on @GhoshSubhag sir, as this is his recommendation. Thanks !!
More from Bookstoread
Good Books for learning Price Action.
First two are good enough, if you want to really go in depth then go for 3rd one by Al Brooks later (Its only for serious and committed learners, as its too detailed and would tire out a casual reader). https://t.co/2Vgq5gCVXL
First two are good enough, if you want to really go in depth then go for 3rd one by Al Brooks later (Its only for serious and committed learners, as its too detailed and would tire out a casual reader). https://t.co/2Vgq5gCVXL

Book name plz
— \ufe0e (@12354368ys_g) March 4, 2022
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?