#Watchlist
#Breakout Soon Candidates!
1) #SHOPERSTOP (D)
2) #FORTIS (D)
3) #TECHM (W)
4) #HDFCLIFE (W)
Keep on Radar :)
Potential Upside on Cards!
#Disclaimer:-I just shared view for only educational purpose.
@nishkumar1977 @RajarshitaS
More from Sagar Solanki
#Watchlist
#GUJGASLTD (2 hours): -687.5 CMP, with support If 680 holds, then 730/800 is on the way :)
#Disclaimer:- View shared is for educational purposes only. Conduct your due diligence before making any trading/investment decisions.
@caniravkaria @nishkumar1977 https://t.co/IoIa9TASCm
#GUJGASLTD (2 hours): -687.5 CMP, with support If 680 holds, then 730/800 is on the way :)
#Disclaimer:- View shared is for educational purposes only. Conduct your due diligence before making any trading/investment decisions.
@caniravkaria @nishkumar1977 https://t.co/IoIa9TASCm
Gujarat Gas.... CMP 700...
— Nirav S. Karia (@caniravkaria) September 3, 2021
Baby \U0001f37c \U0001f425 steps \U0001fa9c
Request views and guidance from experts \U0001f64f
(Purely for educational purposes) pic.twitter.com/Eidd0AHZlz
More from Hdfclife
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?