#JUBLFOOD (W)
- Bounced from support
- New demand zone created
- Bounced with good volume
- Trading in HH-HL Structure
- Buy above 2880
- Stoploss 2500 (DCB)
- Target 3250/3750/4100/4590+
- TF ≈ 1 year
#Investing

More from Himanshu Chauhan
More from Jublfood
JUBLFOOD
Double Top Buy & T20 Pattern - Bullish above 4058.33 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/DPEehZwkS4
Double Top Buy & T20 Pattern - Bullish above 4058.33 daily close on 1% Box Size chart. https://t.co/DPEehZwkS4

JUBLFOOD
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) June 24, 2020
Achieved the second target of 1820 today, now near the first target of 1780!
Got a nice 15-20% move till now.
Trailing stop loss is the best thing one can do now! https://t.co/YidPZamyxz
#jubilantfoodworks @ 2443, an "abc" correction is "almost" done fm 4575
Holding 2500 & moving past 2615 would be the 1st sign of reversal attempt
Only +ve factor "Highly oversold"-meant for aggressive traders
Conservative traders wait for some "Bull candle" formation in Day t/f https://t.co/NbwmqJxo0W
Holding 2500 & moving past 2615 would be the 1st sign of reversal attempt
Only +ve factor "Highly oversold"-meant for aggressive traders
Conservative traders wait for some "Bull candle" formation in Day t/f https://t.co/NbwmqJxo0W

sir view on jubilant food works pls
— om namo venkatesaya (@being__trader) March 21, 2022
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?