#mcdowells 🍻
Attractive chart setup.
Descending channel & Supply zone breakout and retest.
#Nifty #stock #trading #invest #StockToWatch #stockmarket
More from ₹ohan $hah
More from Mcdowell
A big rerating underway for #McDowell based on price action.
Holding 660 & 680, poised for big run in the days, weeks & months ahead.
Volume goes with rises
Holding 660 & 680, poised for big run in the days, weeks & months ahead.
Volume goes with rises
Thank you.\U0001f64f
— Van Ilango (JustNifty) (@JustNifty) August 18, 2021
A fresh input for you. #McDowell
A major triangle break out in the coming months.
Presently poised to move out of recent consolidation pic.twitter.com/J15F06ODUq
United Spirits - How beautifully chart patterns work on a monthly scale, too. I was bullish on this for the reason that it is coming out from a very strong tight consolidation zone. https://t.co/rdjPmgFN7d
United Spirits (McDowell) - I will not wait for the monthly closing and will take an entry in this with an SL at 690. I lose almost nothing in lieu of the potential reward. https://t.co/HCnRuWvIpO pic.twitter.com/echxv0Aav0
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) September 2, 2021
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