#UnitedSpirits #McDowell expected 5 waves.. https://t.co/MIagIPeCeS
Sir,
— Me (@meshaiv) September 23, 2021
If you can update on present counts wrt long term view....
More from Harsh Mehta
Chart wise labeling for 1,2,i,ii for now - counts invalid if falls further to 38. In that case will take a fresh look.
#Nifty #Elliotwave #Chart https://t.co/2mvKfAs3wA
Holding 29, major wave 2 looks over. Will you believe if I say ATH will come? But let's go step my step - 80-130-200 \U0001f600#Bhel pic.twitter.com/3KPCYeDoDp
— Harsh Mehta (@_Harsh_Mehta_) February 4, 2021
Below 640, counts need to be revalidated. https://t.co/1e7hs0ZkxR
#BhartiAirtel #Bharti #Nifty - Chart update - Count wise we are in 5th wave starting from 254.15.
— Harsh / \ud5c8\uc26c (@_Harsh_Mehta_) May 17, 2021
Breakout from consolidation in 4th wave has come after 13 years, so expect solid move in next 3-5 years. Hold the stock and add on declines. pic.twitter.com/lC3Zsfd8vd
Was looking at #BajajFinance chart once again. I am not able to complete 5 waves yet...hmmm...\U0001f928
— Harsh / \ud5c8\uc26c (@_Harsh_Mehta_) June 17, 2022
As posted earlier, the drop is still 4th (invalidation below 4500).
And target still remains open for 10K+ https://t.co/DozJzNhuuI pic.twitter.com/jPRaEQoPH3
More from Mcdowell
United Spirits (McDowell) - I will not wait for the monthly closing and will take an entry in this with an SL at 690. I lose almost nothing in lieu of the potential reward. https://t.co/HCnRuWvIpO pic.twitter.com/echxv0Aav0
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) September 2, 2021
A clean and clear chart posted in August.
Updated chart. https://t.co/HCnRuWvIpO
United Spirits Ltd - Monthly Log Scale \U0001f37b pic.twitter.com/kj7jXr8moE
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) August 18, 2021
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?