Anyone caught #BAJFINANCE at 1800-1900 levels?
Please watch the video I did that time with simple analysis (was not on Twitter that time)
Feels good 1850 to 7550 now
More from Trading with Fun
More from Bajajfinance
Fresh Chart
NSE:BAJFINANCE 7745
1. Breakout in Pole and Flag pattern at ATH
2. Volume and Price Confirming the Breakout
3. Support near 7400-7300 level
4. Next levels to watch 8200-8400
#TechnicalAnalysis #StocktoWatch @nakulvibhor https://t.co/MSBIQPAEL4
NSE:BAJFINANCE 7745
1. Breakout in Pole and Flag pattern at ATH
2. Volume and Price Confirming the Breakout
3. Support near 7400-7300 level
4. Next levels to watch 8200-8400
#TechnicalAnalysis #StocktoWatch @nakulvibhor https://t.co/MSBIQPAEL4
14. Bajfinance- Daily Chart pic.twitter.com/ottmZN2YGh
— Mr. Chartist (@Mr_Chartist) December 24, 2020
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