Same view on #Reliance ЁЯСН
5 waves from 1998 bottom
5 waves from 2015 bottom
5 waves from 2020 bottom
All on verge of completion on weekly and monthly charts
**3288** the level above which if it moves, need to re-evaluate analysis
IT'S ALL ABOUT CYCLES
#ElliottWaves https://t.co/gqaP855BxM
#Reliance - Near completion of 5 waves from bottom in 98. Period of 2008-2015 was a clear triangle (wave 4)
— Harsh / \ud5c8\uc26c (@_Harsh_Mehta_) June 6, 2022
Some upside still possible but every rise calls for caution. https://t.co/9xjWbR1wn4 pic.twitter.com/gkz9WiUS2Y
More from Prashant Bhansali
#GreavesCotton
#EW
Here's my view based on EW purely for long term
We could witness a big big 3rd wave in coming months
#investmentidea https://t.co/5laFyd8A7X
#EW
Here's my view based on EW purely for long term
We could witness a big big 3rd wave in coming months
#investmentidea https://t.co/5laFyd8A7X
(30) #GreavesCotton monthly chart
— Prashant Bhansali (@prashant280294) June 25, 2021
Big monthly breakout underway
Is it time to move to next orbit higher ? Looks like! #PB365 pic.twitter.com/CB0OtIow7G
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" thingтАФphysical 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" thingтАФphysical 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?