#HAVELLS (weekly)
- Breakout from Supply zone
- Tarding All time high
- Strong Bullish trend
- Massive volume accumulations
- Buy above 1235
- Stoploss 1175
- Target 1267/1293/1347/1400+

More from Himanshu Chauhan
More from Havells
HAVELLS
Double Top Buy, Super Pattern - Bullish & T20 Pattern - Bullish above 1266.91 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/78Tb2dKZkm
Double Top Buy, Super Pattern - Bullish & T20 Pattern - Bullish above 1266.91 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/78Tb2dKZkm

HAVELLS
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) January 5, 2021
DTB above 921.43 daily close (Closed above it today) on 1% box size chart, DTB active on 3% chart.
I would still stick to my earlier point that 1250-1300 is the next logical supply zone. https://t.co/9SyiHd90qg pic.twitter.com/LjtqKvX1Ld
HAVELLS
Double Top Buy above 1485.56 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/zY8JwRIZUu
Double Top Buy above 1485.56 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/zY8JwRIZUu

HAVELLS
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) August 30, 2021
Double Top Buy, Super Pattern - Bullish & T20 Pattern - Bullish above 1266.91 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/78Tb2dKZkm pic.twitter.com/4lWz25jGgk
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?