#ASIANPAINT-2931
Trend down.
Weekly chart. Fibonacci retracement level shown in chart.
Near term 0.236% and 0.382% Fibonacci retracement level likely to be tested.
#Perspective
More from Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) मैंSchedule Tribe)
Objective is to move higher towards
3.618% - 4.236% and 4.618%
#Probability
#IEX
— MaRkET WaVES (DINESH PATEL ) Stock Market FARMER (@idineshptl) April 20, 2021
On sustain rise above 347 upside shown in chart up to 4.618%(521)
And 6.857%(718).
View valid till 233 not violated. @UdayJad39389920 pic.twitter.com/I2MoPlwXRW
More from Asianpaints
~ Gave sell call near 3300
~ Good to add at below levels
2580 /2200 https://t.co/lRdCEfw7WD
#ASIANPAINTS We all know about this stock but is it really worth to add at CMP?
— Pranay Prasun (@PranayPrasun) February 19, 2022
Reasons are \U0001f447
~Monthly RSI is too high .So we may see breakdown in next few months
~Continuous profit booking at top level.Hence we're near to top in long term chart
Hope it helps u to understand\U0001f60a pic.twitter.com/3ltwZMs3d8
It has string resistance at 3200, so fresh up-move will be confirmed only when it opens above 3220-3230 levels
#ASIANPAINT
#DKBPositional https://t.co/Q6fTbK5VHM
Asian Paints also at crucial support line, bulls desperately need a reversal here, else it'll go in hibernation..... pic.twitter.com/VTfaMfpHXs
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) October 21, 2021
You May Also Like
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?