#TATAELXSI-5850
As the stock rise almost 89* from 499
And likely go down and maintain 45* it may be 0.50% (3555) or 0.618%(2834)
Losing momentum and likely test 5168.
#Probability
More from Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) मैंSchedule Tribes)
#ASIANPAINT-2853
What a beautiful picture
#Wow
एक कलर #लाल भी है
#ASIANPAINT-2931
— Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) \u092e\u0948\u0902Schedule Tribe) (@idineshptl) March 3, 2022
Trend down.
Weekly chart. Fibonacci retracement level shown in chart.
Near term 0.236% and 0.382% Fibonacci retracement level likely to be tested.#Perspective pic.twitter.com/cWJ0qaqDhK
What a beautiful picture
#Wow
एक कलर #लाल भी है
More from Tataelxsi
#Tataelxsi-6580
Objective is to move higher towards
Fibonacci extension
6.857%(7294)
#Probability
Objective is to move higher towards
Fibonacci extension
6.857%(7294)
#Probability
#TATAELXSI-6277
— Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) \u092e\u0948\u0902Schedule Tribes) (@idineshptl) October 6, 2021
Objective is to move higher towards Fibonacci extension
6.857%(7294)#Probability https://t.co/M4rSDCf5kt
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
