#PIDILITIND long term chart, sustaining below 2100, can fall towards 1500 over time, Weekly RSI & MACD quite weak, stock has pulled back to breakdown level
#Nifty #stock #stocks
Not trading call, academic post
More from Techno Prince
More from Pidilite
#PIDILITE Update
Swinging in a range post reversal from Point D.
In weekly; Converging trendlines along with declining volume as the price progresses is progressing.
Targets remain intact at 2320 and 2380.
#StockMarket #StockToWatch https://t.co/8q988LZ5Er
as the price is progressing*
Swinging in a range post reversal from Point D.
In weekly; Converging trendlines along with declining volume as the price progresses is progressing.
Targets remain intact at 2320 and 2380.
#StockMarket #StockToWatch https://t.co/8q988LZ5Er
#PIDILITE
— Gurleen (@GurleenKaur_19) August 12, 2021
Price volume action.
The setup looks good above 2273.40 for targets of 2320 followed by 2380.
[On Watchlist] #StockMarket #StocksInFocus pic.twitter.com/8htyGPIjEl
as the price is progressing*
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?