#JUBLINGREA -592
Now moving towards 6.857% (668)
And beyond it upward Fibonacci extension shown in chart.
#JUBLINGREA -429
— MaRkET WaVES (DINESH PATEL ) Stock Market FARMER (@idineshptl) April 30, 2021
A #perspective pic.twitter.com/EjHgslX2fg
More from MaRkET WaVES (DINESH PATEL ) Stock Market FARMER
Either entry only above 1600 or let it
correct towards 987...
#Update
#CDSL -1050
— MaRkET WaVES (DINESH PATEL ) Stock Market FARMER (@idineshptl) July 9, 2021
Now above 2.618% and objective is to move higher towards 3.618%
4.236% and 4.618%....
What will Drag lower this stock price \U0001f602 ?
Only if you can sell your holding
Means Verticle rise ?
Than why it decline from (486-180.)#Observation #Perspective pic.twitter.com/evxYOjH8Qv
More from Jubliantingrevia
💥 11% Up
Trading at ATH
#jubilantingrevia #jubilingrea
— Sk Parbesh\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\U0001f4ca\U0001f4c8\U0001f4c9 (@Chart_View) July 21, 2021
Breakout from tight consolidation with highest daily volume exactly from support
Posted Excellent Q1 Result
Good Setup to go long
CMP: 589
Weakness below: 540 DCB@nid_rockz https://t.co/03RvbA2oZy pic.twitter.com/Vl6Rk52noY
#JUBLINGREA
Updated Chart
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?