#SBILIFE Weekly
Butterfly T1 and T2 active on charts.
For T1; Target at Point D [1165] where it might take a toll as it's the PRZ.
For T2 to pick up pace; A strong weekly close above 1165 would be needed for the target of 1340.
#StockMarket #StocksToWatch
More from Gurleen
#LTI
Broken past the consolidation over again with excellent price volume action.
Harmonics in place along with a sequence of HL-HH and heading towards the target of Point D [5000] eventually.
#StockMarket #StocksToWatch https://t.co/kudBpwWUZD
Broken past the consolidation over again with excellent price volume action.
Harmonics in place along with a sequence of HL-HH and heading towards the target of Point D [5000] eventually.
#StockMarket #StocksToWatch https://t.co/kudBpwWUZD
#LTI
— Gurleen (@GurleenKaur_19) July 14, 2021
Strong positive move with above average volume almost after 4 weeks.
A breakout here would trigger 4242. #StockMarketindia #StocksToWatch pic.twitter.com/G0fWGyNhLT
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?