Fast forward to today when I added Gold at 1850. It made a sharp-up move but didn't want to sell for the sake of hedging. The positions were scaled up around 1925 with the fresh SL of 1900.
So far doing good. 2000 is the level I would be looking for. https://t.co/j1kiKRSx0y

GOLD - 1 9 2 7 from 1 8 5 0
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) February 24, 2022
No indicators, nothing. Understand the language of the price. https://t.co/l6pEGD7r6D pic.twitter.com/JWZjlTLSBF
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

Sir Edwards & Magee discussed sloping necklines in H&S in their classical work. I am considering this breakdown by Affle as an H&S top breakdown with a target open of 770.
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) May 25, 2022
The target also coincides with support at the exact same level. pic.twitter.com/n84kSgkg4q
More from Gold
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?