#MaithanAlloys 958
C&H breakout on daily charts
Needs a daily close above 952 to sustain this BO
Cup depth is roughly 250 points
https://t.co/1xdN77D2vY
Trade at your own conviction!
More from Nishant Kumar
More from Maithanalloys
Price playing within the resistance zone. Let it be. This is a healthy sign and it would be good if the stock continues to consolidate in this zone for a few days/weeks. This would help RSI cool down, and also lead to change of hands!
#MaithanAlloys 1022
#MaithanAlloys 1022
#MaithanAlloys 940
— Nishant Kumar (@nishkumar1977) June 18, 2021
970 - 1030 is going to offer stiff resistance.
We are approaching 4 digit mark and ATH territory!! Fingers crossed!!https://t.co/bMgkKffyXc https://t.co/8DSt1yHPN8
Maithan Alloys - Trend change above 700 done
Retest of support at 700-710 is a great opportunity cmp 761+
Potential target 1000-1300-1500 in next 1-1.5 year
It has Pole & Flag pattern on multiyear log scale which gives a taget of 2000+ and more over next 3-4 years https://t.co/aCDDcGVqOc
Retest of support at 700-710 is a great opportunity cmp 761+
Potential target 1000-1300-1500 in next 1-1.5 year
It has Pole & Flag pattern on multiyear log scale which gives a taget of 2000+ and more over next 3-4 years https://t.co/aCDDcGVqOc
Yes please @shivaji_1983 sir. Share your chart view on MAITHAN ALLOYS
— Anushka (@AnushkaDas28) June 1, 2021
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?