DIVIS LAB
(Monthly & Daily chart)
➡️ Technical analysis👇
#divislab #stocks #StocksInFocus

More from Rajeev
Gujarat State Fertilizer
(Updated Chart)
➡️ stock testing breakout zone (pullback)
#gsfc #stocks https://t.co/r9P951sO8v
(Updated Chart)
➡️ stock testing breakout zone (pullback)
#gsfc #stocks https://t.co/r9P951sO8v

Gujarat State Fertilizer
— Rajeev (@chartswealth) April 2, 2022
(Weekly Chart)
\u27a1\ufe0f CMP : 174.05
\u27a1\ufe0f 4 Years breakout
\u27a1\ufe0f Possible upside : 200-225+
\u27a1\ufe0f Trailing Stoploss 138 wcb
\u27a1\ufe0f Chart for educational purposes only#gsfc #stockstowatch #investing #StockMarketindia #stockstobuy #stocks https://t.co/yDuZDIwVjn pic.twitter.com/LBHwPKaGOc
More from Divis
DIVISLAB
Double Top Buy & Super Pattern - Bullish above 5051.46 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/vy43JDtiC9
Double Top Buy & Super Pattern - Bullish above 5051.46 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/vy43JDtiC9

DIVISLAB
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) June 29, 2021
Double Top Buy, T20 Pattern - Bullish, Super Pattern - Bullish above 4394.59 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/3F3aLZk5td pic.twitter.com/onK3yuy7nG
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x