CDSL - First target achieved. ✅
On to the next target of 1780.
Updated chart. https://t.co/Ux4GVGnWp8
CDSL - Targets opened
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) November 4, 2021
1575 & 1780
Weak below 1360 pic.twitter.com/0dorwkzVOK
More from The_Chartist 📈
Tata Elxsi (W) - near to the resistance zone again 5th time. @nishkumar1977 @suru27 @rohanshah619 @indian_stockss @sanstocktrader @BissaGauravB @RajarshitaS @PAVLeader @Rishikesh_ADX @VijayThk @Investor_Mohit @TrendTrader85 @jitendra_stock pic.twitter.com/aIC5kO8XqA
— Steve Nison (@nison_steve) December 18, 2020
although a must-have portfolio stock. Faced resistance right at the upper channel boundary. Volumes high. Any retracement back to the lower boundary will be an opportunity to accumulate. https://t.co/5uDsUXsbPP
IEX - the resistance turning support. Kindly review, please. @nishkumar1977 @suru27 @rohanshah619 @indian_stockss @sanstocktrader @BissaGauravB @RajarshitaS @PAVLeader @Rishikesh_ADX @VijayThk @Investor_Mohit @TrendTrader85 pic.twitter.com/7CCzmee5If
— Steve Nison (@nison_steve) December 18, 2020
Fresh case - RUPA https://t.co/nqq5nI1wLU
Respect your stop losses in the stocks that have gone down today with heavy volumes even on a strong day.
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) March 17, 2022
VTL pic.twitter.com/3pJ9XngCDL
More from Cdsl
I believe 5-10 stocks are enough for a retail investor to achieve super performance. And with small capital, there is no point in buying 20/30 names which doesn't even get appropriate initial capital.
Stock: CDSL
— Steve Nison (@nison_steve) December 16, 2020
CMP - 516.95. Low risk setup. Weak below 500. Target open. Stock retesting the ascending triangle BO line. Kindly check please. @nishkumar1977 @Rishikesh_ADX @VijayThk @kuttrapali @Thekalal @PAVLeader pic.twitter.com/PlcpOMsdnz
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?