HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of propertyBob: I don't have an organization or meetings. I'm just a concerned
local historian and citizen. There are many local people concerned with
losing our local ancient cultural history for the lack of taking a quick
look before destruction
Rick
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Bob Baugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
Rick: First nobody in your organization reach out to the owners
of the property or invited them to your meeting. Second the report
covers all the 10.6 acres within the boundary of the report which
included the developed land previously mention, that now you accused me
of including to "confuse the issue". I did not write the report! When a
report shows the boundary of the land included in the report and states
the acres The report clearly says it follow all the state and federal
concerning archeological site survey.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bob,
The 2006 report by ESI labels the dunal ridge in the
middle of the property (shown as a dashed line on the survey map from
the 2006 ESI report *See highlighted attached map) as "disturbed", a
conclusion they reached from 3 test holes near it. They did Not label
the entire front side (A1A side, east side) of the property as
"disturbed", which by the way does not disqualify anything from having
archeological potential or "not meet the state standard for
archeological sites" as you state, what ever that means in your mind.
The map does show that there were No Test Holes done on the A1A side
(east side) of the parcel in question and that there are three small
structures there since 1948+/- and the majority of the east side of the
parcel is in state as it was since the 1943 aerials, undeveloped other
than the "yards" of these small homes under the trees. The existence of
these small structures does not make any archeology in the ground around
them evaporate.
There is archeological occupation evidence throughout
the area that includes this parcel, including the known and recorded
midden site on the river edge side (west side) of this parcel (BR1936).
We have learned recently that there are at least 4 new significant
ancient archeological sites in context and contiguous to that this
parcel indicating a here to unknown or recorded probable large village
site. We have recently discovered, standing in this area of Cape
Canaveral, portions of it's ridge mound still intact in plain sight with
midden and artifacts all over it, until now unrecorded (we are in
process of site filing these new discoveries). These new parts of this
ancient puzzle explaining and unifying the archeology of this parcel's
site (BR1936) and most if not all the sites in the adjacent area,
including the Fuller Mounds, middens and Burials to the north end where
part of the ridge mound still stands, with the other end of the Ridge
mound standing in the Cape Shores Condo, right next door to this parcel.
In fact the dunal ridge that runs through this parcel appears to be
aligned as the natural structure that the ridge mound starting in Cape
Shores was built upon, adding significance to the disturbed dunal ridge
on the parcel. I have informed DHR of all this new information along
with the attached diagrams and asked for their consideration.
The attempt to confuse the Mini Golf Course site and the
new Dollar Store site for purposes of obfuscation of the recipients is
sad. This parcel is mostly open never before developed land all the way
from the river to the highway (A1A), We all know this reality. And the
A1A side (east side) has not been phase one tested with test holes, the
ESI survey map shows this. The ESI 2006 report quite rightly included -
"Unexpected findings can occur during project development and might
include discovery of human remains, which would require additional
coordination with the state archeologist in compliance with Chapter
872.05, Florida Statutes...". Considering that other bodies of
pre-contact individuals have been found in the adjacent area (within 50
meters+/-) in the recent past, taking 2 days to allow some properly
supervised phase one test holes (small holes) and gather the data that
is present before your development destroys and paves over anything that
may be there, is only rational. It's not a big deal. If by any chance
human bones are found during the middle of your excavating, you Will
have to Stop or be Breaking the Law, and at that point it could be way
more of an expense than getting in and getting out right now.
There is archeological data available on this site to
help complete the understanding of this overall ancient site that is
revealing itself in this area of Cape Canaveral (even if we find very
little it establishes the limits of the known site). There is no real
downside for you or the developer that is engendering your knee jerk
reaction of lashing out and trying to impugn the Chairman and the
Unanimous Advice from the BCHC, that a look should be taken at the east
side of the parcel in question because it has never been tested, before
the opportunity is gone. You could decide to be a good corporate
neighbor and citizen and allow this little thing to happen to help
preserve the history of Florida that belongs to all of us, but
apparently there is a desire, rational or not, to believe that this
cooperation somehow injures you or is a plot to take something from you,
when it is just about preserving historical data and science. The chance
of finding anything so unimaginable that it would initiate some major
expense or difficulty for you and the developer is extremely remote,
even fanciful and in Florida there is nothing the state will do to stop
development anyway. Even bodies are just examined and removed for
protection and development proceeds. This is not Windover, a site that
turned out to be one of the most important anthropological sites in the
world... and still the development continued all around it. We are not
going to find the Dead Sea Scrolls but perhaps some pieces of evidence
that will help with filling out our understanding of what went on in the
daily lives of our amazingly ancient local culture of the Ais (Ah-eez)
people, who lived their lives around a thriving village for perhaps a
thousand years (dated material from your site) right there on your
property. The Ais are one of the oldest resident cultures in North
America, possibly 4000 years on this barrier island, and their history
was almost wiped out, save for precious pieces like this last stretch of
beautiful original shoreline hammock, and coincidentally a probable
archeological site of a here to unknown and unrecorded significant
village occupation. I have informed DHR of all this new information and
asked for their consideration.
What is the big deal? Is your only thought "Who Cares!"
Why so dark and angry about this simple reasonable idea of preserving
historical DATA before it's lost? You could be the good guy that helps
add to our communities knowledge of our own local history with no down
side. You won't be compelled to do anything to stop your development...
unless you dredge up bodies in your excavation and then it will screech
to a halt for however long that takes. Is this really the way Cumberland
Farms wants to be known in the community before it even opens it's
doors, destroy and insult the community's concerns about history as well
as all the other unfavorable feelings they seem to be engendering in
their local neighbors and potential customers? There's a lot of places
to choose to get gas.
Rick Piper
Alan: What you seem to be missing and I'm not sure it is
intentional or not that the eastern half of the property has already
been developed. It has a 36 miniature golf course on it, with several
ponds dug to 10', now a Dollar General (time of the report a defunct
restaurant), and the section that the proposed Cumberland Farm sites on
has 3 buildings (two story house, duplex, and a foundation for a house
that was torn down) all on the eastern section. This section of the
land is clearly label disturbed land on the report and has no
archaeology value because the land has been previously developed and
does not meet the state standard for archaeology sites. If you are
proposing all developed land in that area has to meet a higher standard
then state and federal law I suggest you have no standing to make such a
request and that you are either misinformed or politically motivated in
the "stop the redevelopment" of the site. Either way I do not think you
are doing the mission of the Brevard County Historical Commission by
your actions. When you sit on a public board I would think one of the
minimum requirements is following the laws of the land, including laws
on archaeology sites. I believe (do not have the report in front of me
while I'm responding to this email) that page 28 of the 43 page report
clearly shows this.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Alan Brech
<aebrech@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry, I keep getting my east-west confused.
Replace "eastern" in previous email with "western" etc.
thanks,
Alan Brech
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com>
To: Timothy.Parsons
<Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>; D.Dickey
<D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: R.Randels
<R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net>; kkopp <kkopp@orlandolaw.net>; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>; rko153 <rko153@gmail.com>; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com>; ricksbigart tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 7:10 am
Subject: 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF
#13871) did not test eastern half of property
Dear Doctor Parsons and Mr. Dickey (and
distinguished co-recipients):
ESI's map from their 2006 report (Figure 5, page
21, FMSF #13871) clearly shows that ESI did not conduct any subsurface
testing on the eastern half of the property in question (6455 N.
Atlantic Ave. Cape Canaveral, FL, called "Cabo Verde" in ESI documents).
If you consult that map you will see that ESI
did not excavate any tests along the eastern half of the property, and,
perhaps just as important, did not place a sufficient number of tests
along the relict dune line that roughly bisects the property, an
landform that has been known from nearby sites to often contain
prehistoric sites.
How could this happen? Perhaps the 2006 "area
of impact" was different than the present-day "area of impact?" From my
experience in both contract archaeology in general and as a technician
who has worked for ESI and for Mr. Brent Handley, it is too often the
case that archaeology companies limit their sub-surface testing to the
areas specified by the client as the "area of impact." Once given the
"all clear" by the archaeology company and the Division of Historic
Resources, the client then shifts the area of impact.
Regardless how it came to be that half the
property was not tested, the ESI survey was plainly deficient for the
current proposed impacts--the eastern portion of the site was never
tested and the central portio of the site was not tested sufficiently.
yours,
Alan Brech
Chairman, Brevard County Historical Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Osborne <info@a1aresearch.com>
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com>; Alan
Brech <AEBrech@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:56 pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
I followed up with Mr. Parson to see if David
Dickey left anything out. Here you go. Nice long exchange
of email with important points that David leaves
out.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
<Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Subject: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
To: Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com>
Hello Ray,
Here is the email exchange that I had with David
last week.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation |
Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500
South Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:53 PM
To: 'David Dickey'
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
No further investigation is required or
requested by the state in the area covered by the survey report, because
the area was previously surveyed to Florida standards as part of a
permit application process (pursuant to Ch. 267 and 373, Florida
Statutes). I can’t speak to local (county, city, etc.) requirements.
Based on the information that we have, it seems that the entire tract
was surveyed. That said, I have not seen the boundary/project area for
the proposed project, so it is possible that part of the project area
remains surveyed if it is not contiguous with the surveyed area in the
report.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation |
Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500
South Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey
[mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:43 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – I have another question related to
the Cabo Verde tract (BR 1936) in Cape Canaveral. First, let me spell
out the issue and share several observations.
On August 8, 2014, the City received the
attached letter from the Brevard County Historical Commission regarding
its recommendation for further archaeological analysis of the entire
property on which the BR 1936 site is located. The impetus for the
Commission’s letter is the proposed development of the northeast portion
of the Cabo Verde Tract, adjacent to A1A.
The Commission indicates in its letter that the
“2006 survey did not test the entire property going to the east, towards
Highway A1A.” This is their justification for further analysis.
However, in Section I. Introduction, of the Cultural Resource Assessment
Survey of the Cabo Verde Tract (Study), which is attached, it states
that the survey includes a 10.61 acre property, between U.S. 1 and the
Banana River. Further, page 2 (Project Location Map) and page 5 (Soils
Map) of the Survey shows the project boundary, which includes the area
from the river to A1A (U.S. 1). In fact, page 21 of the Survey shows
that several sites (BR 1939 & BR 1940) on the extreme east end of the
study area, adjacent to A1A were evaluated.
My understanding is that no further
investigation is required of the 10.61 acre Cabo Verde Tract prior to
its development. Should any research be conducted of the Cabo Verde
Tract, it will be voluntary on the part of the property owner. This
understanding is largely based on the position you articulate in your
email below.
Now for my question…would you agree that no
further investigation within the 10.61 acre project area is required
prior to its development?
Should you have any questions or would like to
discuss this further, please call me at (321)868-1221, ext. 11. Thank
you for your assistance with this. Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:03 PM
To: David Dickey
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Yes, that is correct (though we recommend
avoidance of the site whenever possible). The exception would be if
human remains or significant amounts of archaeological material were to
be uncovered during development. At that point, Ch. 872.05 requires
consultation with the Division regarding human remains, and most
state/federal permits contain conditions requiring notification if
archaeological material is discovered.
Any research that takes place at this point is
voluntary, would be a collaboration between the property owner and the
researcher(s), and does not involve DHR. Though, if any archaeological
work does take place, we would be pleased to receive an updated Site
File form and a copy of the report for our records.
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation |
Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500
South Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey
[mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons - Thank you for your quick response.
My understanding of your email is that if a site has been determined to
be ineligible for listing, the State will not require protective
measures be taken during its development. And, any further
investigation or protection once a finding of ineligible has been made,
will be voluntary on the part of the property owner. Is that correct?
Thanks! Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Dickey
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
BR1936 is the only archaeological site recorded
as part of the 2006 survey of the Cabo Verde Tract. The site was
evaluated as ineligible for listing on the National Register at that
time, as I noted in my letter to Mr. Osborne in 2013.
Unless a state or federal permit (Water
Management District, Corps of Engineers, DEP) will be necessary for the
development, no further review by the Division of Historical Resources
is required under law. If a permit is required, we will review it for
impacts to eligible sites pursuant to Ch. 267, Florida Statutes, and/or
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Since
the site was determined to be ineligible in 2006, it is unlikely that my
office would request any specific course of action as regards the
preservation or investigation of the site. That said, we obviously have
no objection to further investigation of the site before it is
destroyed, as long as such a project involves a professional
archaeologist and proceeds with the permission of the landowner.
It is not unusual for human remains to be
present at archaeological sites in Volusia County (and along this
stretch of coast generally). If human remains were to be encountered
during development regardless of eligibility status, all work must stop
and notification procedures to law enforcement and the State
Archaeologists office must be followed pursuant to Ch. 872.05, Florida
Statutes.
I hope that this has been helpful. Please let
me know if I can answer any other questions.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation |
Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500
South Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey
[mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:18 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – by way of this email I would
request your assistance in determining the status of the Cabo Verde
Tract (BR 1936) that is within the city limits of Cape Canaveral.
The City has received a development application
for a site that may include a portion(s) of the Cabo Verde Tract. As
part of the City’s due diligence, we are reaching out to your office to:
1- determine what resources are on the site; 2- if these resources are
of a quality to warrant preservation; and, if so, 3 - what measures are
required by the State to protect these resources.
In the attached letter you indicate that site BR
1936 is ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. I
have also included a letter (below) from Mr. Frederick Gaske, with the
State Historic Preservation Office, dated June 1, 2006, where he states
his office concurs with the finding by Environmental Services, Inc. that
development of the Cabo Verde site “will have no effect on cultural
resources listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, or otherwise of
historical, architectural, or archeological value.”
Thank you for your assistance with this matter
and I look forward to hearing from you. If it would be helpful, I can
be available for a phone conference at any time.
Dave
<image001.png>
Florida has a very broad public records law. As
a result, any written communication created or received by the City of
Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the
public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida
Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email
address released in response to a public-records request, do not send
electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or
in writing
@ItsWorkingFL
<image002.jpg> <https://twitter.com/ItsWorkingFL>
The Department of State is committed to excellence.
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey
<http://survey.dos.state.fl.us/index.aspx?email=Timothy.Parsons@dos.myfl
orida.com> .
Florida has a very broad public records law. As
a result, any written communication created or received by the City of
Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the
public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida
Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email
address released in response to a public-records request, do not send
electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or
in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As
a result, any written communication created or received by the City of
Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the
public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida
Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email
address released in response to a public-records request, do not send
electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or
in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As
a result, any written communication created or received by the City of
Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the
public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida
Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email
address released in response to a public-records request, do not send
electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or
in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As
a result, any written communication created or received by the City of
Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the
public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida
Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email
address released in response to a public-records request, do not send
electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or
in writing
<8BR1936 diagram.jpg>
<Cape Canvaeral Contiguos Village Site Shoreline Map
copy-8x10-5.jpg>
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
놔ዠ㒲肹銿櫔、镠귢뀳樰dz죷�晐ㅆČ蛲毿㙢酀㟡뢀酑肛솷돨耻懤偮㋤鎡똇镦羦瓰䛰㇙宋瑹✿⡿ﶏ曰黂뾕Ⓜ衳冐㇐兼ሴ灵鑒솊m歴譒詊䛁꺀芐燃ｑ쐶偼臅짤兇舿ං꿔渢燵ஒ뺡ﾰ遫醭ퟞɫ钪킒귿烐驠欠㩂㭏㱟Ｏ㿿䄈ᕴ䪋犟 퓻ꆠ瑤꼀뼁鞜ቷ⇞统正䒒僧肅史凧捓ၴ邠눚귿颱궱鞀珳＠ᅽ銗㎲ጸ叡惩ၴ쫿덶鉿婰ꊂ꩑羅炙Ⴣꎵᅮ↊倿﹡쥺蒁陖�ㄢ⁂羡罊轋齌荼共ꁶ難ꄭ稐낈邋
ꂰ劒곿徰歒�彠剅눅甒ｑ苉゠ㅬ냴⑭畘ኲ쇺秂僧냢醮グ飿靡鑰⍀쫣ᯥﾤ几ꎳ蒭ɼ㈫≦슿䥆陿둰箲綡倂懲䦴丣颡䄀ဠ∦胅逋}რ傸茴캀欀铤�ὢ⽣㽤痰푢榠ﾀጳ÷偼蓅ᑨ혗胇↵泾낈荅胅遫燃䃿况姁퀦∠ᅑشﵳ鄳鉴쒁ࡐ짐㕰缲ᄦꈭ셈뀠⋐ꆠ省〴正蓅炟ꆌ㍲톬뻿許禲�죓ａȋ㈭蓬싷퀋膔醮瓿㗠�謑槑懶ㅐ뽀탗ꈟ㼺꽶뽷曰ꁉ辤ꄱဠ䁗䡄졒笃䋱蹒ἒ얔玣䂰桤鼔鵱襓캏쿟侌࿒ΐ⿔徕俖志泘��基䖲㈋욹먿ｐ팠
⎸剫ዋᾤဈ䀴ꕽ≙梙邟났냧넠Ａ侢徣ꠂ邟났催ᇶ엿즣ⓑ궒ἰ쐭䇲揧⼥Ꮯ䅄﹔镁誯駿䶟亯િ勄ﾟ꽓옂샆ㆹ瀙၇킠젌קୢแ杓᭵҂�懞チ툝싁ꇡ୭㻒ﭢ苬襤异憢筄㼷扛燱ꌆꐌꀮ❮᧿며ᶡ㣒ⱡ㢗羖돁᤹Ɋi恴팱､뀠슺悉☾叵〿悈�䇀ଧ由꺟꾯ｲ쉚ꀪ뀠뀈聛툙醍惰ㇿₓऱᦣṲօ䊡ꃡꋱ琛ꅻ畃흭큉싷饆洠s끻䟿ᦰຳ䦄륅㎦૰ￅ狪싨耰悿ꀋ脚燯⎲怰⺢珢녡Ⳑᆶ凿⨡䗰�②៓缰⋤퉻ѐķ섉i뽶ᇠ必濆翇痰੦
䏫熨
焃髴䑉棿慂ན㹆嚁ྐ儐獡셳ꁳ뛣Бﾂㅞ÷找瀫뀄᷿喰ۑ鉰鎟钯�Ｏ�ﾘྚᾛ⾜㾝侞鿭剒瀀籐／ῦ迫㿨俩忪濫翬迭イ狡∽逩ﹲ鸏㏙ﲐ!⮒ﱰ煜㪲翲迳鿴꿵뿶履ﳿ댏ϲ崱먰㝶禡ꂪ탽끬₡〺硰ภⴸ〿就ⷁꂪ瑦㨼ัꢁ龐㼰柡鉢鼨㑠ᄬ⤵¹䅝〿⿾伉꼋밌ﷻ肣潡༓ἔ⼕묌뼗ᬋ麿䇩ㅺ鼺㾄觝怿慴挬䁗❉⏿啐풲턀䍔䜲꯲１슀荃쇗텬쀴䇊徿䛁澔趆箑쳒擡㸏㈁䦦ꗰ溟獢ꅰ❜ち䦵롉辰쉻㌠〃愿䄯舢
漨⧿⩿랊▰뚁峡滠퇣ﾀ內扛ä⅄ㆭ䁴ꁖ釒ꇣ짰㇢✰偄뼬켭⪷몊䒁텗ℚ�ﴰ䌱儨奐䘁ꖅ䝐բｏῚ꼘㗜郢恐ꂀ烕᧷䖰䝀⦡睺燝ᑁ圤潿埱쵀䣝濕☁㎲壯娑巀昲瑁¾䋀腻毯杢ㅁ柰砡蒂郢郊槿送쨤쪒䈡媒확篁｡ꄧ솆큦狗젤ꔽ⁕㋿㎿⫏ꨐ㴲熵츥ﴳㅦꩣࢠ忀픢臠ឰ！큱0悾䁗㉺Ἰ⼹㼺敿큆㜔蚴⛳벲蓡憂蓧�쑠池ꁵ縱聐｠ፅ啌눦猧ꅽ⅟⟿蛇뿳桠⊡섲㵱｣뀙膅쀈ґ䍀弨䧿⩏ṽ쉐灒㺢↴흳１塗瑌Ծꅰ⋊⏏썘⇊滿祑姡얷夒蝅�銠︒乬便像�缵轀趠ﶀÔ
煠싑赒벣姡ﾳ끬셾Ô郢傥ꂦ燿㷂․瀕��℃贱牽ꄐゐ톻⇍ၼゐ懄蟿탁嬅ꚯ枯쀧㝓쁴꽰뽱墵딥䉀齛꽜簪䗾葭鋍肍憿ᐤÐò庿뿆뽠ퟣ⇁䬳䋘녖嫭䌂脦걈翈艐�⽥㽦佧㗜�ꅠＣ䃣㊐轛⽹洪邟鄧䌠퇷邁㹒疠䂫⇃ቿ跿뺀뜀簂핤㝠Ⱗ뤒냝僟ꃝ燁臃胃郊㛿먐綀桦䃁䲁㴘퀀ﴀ橵躣쒄媱薟蚿ￏ챝冾ゟǁ퀶襒킽昁〦퀼ᄷ뽷翐ꆪ冥鈱鏌ꃝ｡偁恆ꋋᾁ⾂㾃㗜ယ뫩㋑┸㒦၁Ξ앒䳽珶퇊瓌⽈�氪쬉ۿޏʖᅌીᮑ땼᤹？⼚㼛弘頂脊氃뼈侩鯯ᶐ갏／
厕燁ኗ냝䋈扯ᆶ偩ྤꗿꘟꜯ끏륿뾿龭꾮쾰�鸞╏뉀㱏ㄡ㴵㇐們䚛齰㛀䀐〃䵁=᾿纒짂ꇁ�瘠㰉迀痭㰧셡肘൦䇢亐吺̠읠䁁酡⸠킽≱ꃗᄎ烤䀗�痐聎ᝫ暬ₕ恁䋁ͦ扁灩䡻偙剅䱰义牋쮐첯岵屸絮懂燏僠⃜晣就킊䦜᷑ྐྵỗ헲鰯㧝舊痝檂畧㻺쥶♷夰㪀˿͏џ驯ﲟ���⻂�ﾷ忖쿟攖觝濠쉵慕⡹ᜠ﹀䁣ᝑ삪봤묏벿꿏꾣⿃윞怲븸㐞悞㳾の冗킍쇽뇍レ춽昀ゅ턍䃀䀬ᝬﾬდ耊탎㆛鿮껨迤ද㨣鏷뻒Ⰰ圐턠Ⱳ泞jቯᐂn
�㋀ﱠ瑰꼗忺�ἅ璘യ？⼎忻翕ἕ俽忾濿弈੯ಏኟᾭሏໟ뗯ၢ枑〦ĭ빤㱴ꊱ彐㰁ა䇆罷ΰ㵖猀넥 耿칦ℍ只䁂偂=i殿㝀⿀技䑰踰洑䂠䝹ⴲ楷⽢滠䈠撡釷ꋟ䨯剛쀷脐轰꽵盿䞹〵ㅟ癯懘嘑馦ﾤ聅腭估缴ࠢሬ伳輸皻披捰烅⇡༯ﾲ俨�ὀ뼖켗�Ῠ⋿دᴟᱏ䨿ữ⅟＿缠罏鼷Ｍ쮇ｆὕ콋䏿䓏䗟囯䢏䤏䨟䬯＿佌彍潎佑潣魑ꅬ䂋珼嬬嚯恟塿奿媏ﾟ콨뽜콝�｠རὣ旿痿冯功厯瞿栏椟Ｏ㽪佫彬潭置软齰꽱绿獟瓏矟粿諯華욒龂佽
澇潿羀辁꾃蓿薿蛏蟟裯諿谏鳯ￏ轸齹꽺⾞㾏侐徑澒鏿鑿閏隟鞯颿ꗏ驿ﾛ�ྤྲ뾪価徢쾩럿ꗯꚏꞟꢯ릿꩟ꯟ开漁缂較鼄ﾹ澯羰뎯뉟쪟뽿ⴵ싍ᅏᅀ⁰ⱍ✠⯠鼐쏍㿠信忢켓䙽郛浬贺뗹☟烟䌼쿑㜻愼栠瀶퍦倐ȷ潴큥躀푱慀샂숮涰쀐䃀牶ᄫ倐ၟ東⡀榍❵摀슿�텐⭰篠䠀偙剅䥌๎㱋��峵湜㍽燤뇜獲里就痾〷룖州澾Ᾱￖꇁ둛봠懰ꃐ쿔㱧㸊켿탟퍏吉マࠠ楔㭭棰ﵐ냀ⱳ㙰픯흏菿Ϟ䷭摀獯⬮냜摩�Ｏ㿝쿲�俟忠鿣㮯
䐠❄⪐⯀Πş❏翱Ϟ똅捀怷潹曚Å蹰杰愰性ꀥ�싰柠糝�ﯯၽᇯýࡏ罿漂缃輄뿨쿩�䑽捃⹒杒搰⟿ܯἿয়�⇥ᗷﾏ漌缍輎鼏Ｇ뼒켓뿿ᙏ᠏ᡟ｟鼄䂎냭逩缢輣缵◿Ⴏ㩵㈆⠏⧏⫟⯯＿㼯估䀠㽅鼲㒿㲿㛯㟟㣯㫿圀惄現꿔輻位꼽을�䃿䆿䋏䏟囯垯䞿䠯＿왑彝ｋཌྷ归㽐տ…쁯厲뒧퉿擇䪠搀�当潫罕ჿ沄懴塯奯婿宏熟콲�ὢ⽣�佥暇束偯䣯潯潧潮콿轰홄抄佼潳罴痿皏覟訏礟竏迟簿ཾ⾕⾀㾁侂촄僀
冋郻칐新㾇뾅ᾗ�鬽䂧욀謀谿赏�ꂌꇯ㾑绠辦徖⾖羞侘餿驟楯橏굟沿歶灯鹰鷏둏鼿ၯﾄ쎵ᾧ辢龣꾤⨐뾺�ꣿᷯ쀱겏뢟긯꾿�攅衇斀耟꾸⾷웿릯၏쮆鍄誟벿붟ﾯ뾾࿐ῑﾐ㿂翖侔쐿�잏젏줟쨯䄽︮땁ퟰ컱찿�칿萐ￚ�ￓ࿕����ﾏ�꿟뿠쿡ᾲ⾳쿶癬哸䴮懀ἆ迤⿽꿦ꗿﻶ̟켄濰翱ꃽ༊�⿶Ư蘭䫯郏衦界ဏ缺开ἒʇ睿ᙶ䂺瑡႑汧扯ꄋ潣ｭ％༇Ἀ൷⼜㰝⼌ﹺ⋿ᴟᄺᅯᎿᑟᕯË쀬
쭯橰༚輘⤿햯₠ﹲᵲế῏⃟㏯⍿Ⓙￏ釽켸켧�༱Ｊ༬Ἥאָﰏ㼟氯托耝杵棾耋缱Ｏ콅ἲ噇㓿㔏㘟㜯䬿㧿㩟䥯뽑⼽㼾ｉ彀潁罂狢킵㔱䨳䡯壯ཋ둜杀潍罎俿傏憟劯可替城坿齏彟潙罚轛퇢楲꽟帿氯惯焅疠陭ୢ삀暂쁄獭罢揿撏斟皯眯朷箾ￏ卷⽬ｫ�Ὦ⽯㽰꽃䐏芿ﺿ煖捰獫魩璡끷୰璠Ｏ꽲㾉콴敦�ὢὸ⽹竿逿鄟紫桏闾胿膏ᾟﾍ뾃쾄�躉ㄱ䤶삍牢汜”ᝥ낉澠鲇쭓瑰›垀摥捏悋尣ꗠ㋠郾㨷ㇺƪꅭꈏꌟꐯꔿ뱀扵뀮Ⴆ邥肦꠰ℰ恱
档敡샀杯ﾱ獀牵瀋䃿｢@卅⁉䘨卍䘀⌠㌱㜸萱 悔潮憋⻛诀敠倗炯검욠赬ະ⃰牰耋Ꟑꡏ꥟ꩯ鹿뉬댟鼯㾴Ⲉ㾛䲜㈷㞍袿鰒襸鶰똬钁癠믳ﻟ㙡쀴먟럣Ꚑﻰ문ﴉ飠鹀錀릠멡힟迄徸ꂦ贸曀烣悋釻ᶠ牠傒膒ၷ揬鉥衐椰ꀋ�迆룿릏얟칟뮏벏붟뺯슿₭퀎傒Ꮙꁑ鋉㬪싈眭洐뀡㩹쫵ⱓꁇ୬議혰還楳敺瑰�쳿촟퀣땑뽏삏솟슯쿃�信忢濣俚忈濉쫿첏춟ﾯ뿑쿒�쿜�璘謹ﳟ垴旕耝끧痐ﴭ퓕୴钐�ꖡ燖�臗䠠웗
ͳ��耋晩�䫾꽄裀䱀潄Ⴆ퀋倠よꂋ퀮䴠偍倈톊괽⡱ꈉ悔邔”畧੯䟰꾠鄐ⶠ倛뀎ꍰ삓炥⥳딺㖜膶⿾싧꼎뼏켐�뚿々憏ｬ羜翴迵⼔꿷뿸㿿ቿ₿↿⋏⏟ï鸯滙抆⦍❜ち༥ዿ⩿⮟ⲯᒿᔿᙏｯ⼮輙鼚꼛뼜켝�⛿㭯㰏㴟㸯㼿궀병猧缧輨騩䁻킰酭䟠榠䂈⎬끋瀾䃨悋Ⴎ₋䂭꙯㕑鉰꘠ㅰ⮮轣郕よ⃗₭潨ॷﶀF譡굠껒䋱䎟⦯붚辎鉵哫꼻鴱⼯쩎㏷ँ疰ᆦꀉክ귿꿲ୣ뀡낀䘠꼁访払우鐠⁰畱쉔喅⠱္㔵丠
䅼鉴�각ՠઐ䌀䕿䞀妀讠ְΐא䘱䳶⃘핬꾐䨐域ᮠ䂯⦍䴢夘抠固瀆띤寁屿劏埆�톭꿫㾈位喊ࡤ翀匌儮ⷿ曯棿⸏⾟ﾯ뼰켱�콣Ｔ༶㼹⼸狿㫟䁏䃏眏硯祿窏ﾟ꽯彋潌齩羀辁龂Ὢ毿氯洿湏潟灯煿犏ﾟ澅뽴콵佼轻ﾑྒྷᾔ闫阯䤻゠匐吲偢ъ牅ʙ흷伐ڰꝠ酔⥊⎯硥⃘䩶Ｐ聇쉓犯脉ŕ潕絖ꕟৠ䞡ڱ거炠耉꽵꾑懐浐퉆꺝烶釨ꆜ↭晦ი꽂攠抐瀆捖ᶝ〄럯厐厑띰₰銷ъă柴䥨抁톫ⲟ慟拏諟撟壵擡샧ﹲ繭缏耟䨪鸓ঀꎀ䀄欠灐鹷䕠랳ꂩ䥢榑녔ꁔ
ぞ¤黿꠰권䲏厾ꥁ地噱ﳠ桥䃨⅙鎱ས澄럿룏藟蘟蜯蠿襏꩟ﾏ羋辌龍꾎뾏쾐侗㾺죿줿쩏쭟쁯뉿돯뫿ｯ俑忒濓翔ﾻι⾿샿섿쉏썟홯씿욏춟뼟忌쿢�￥೧䥈뿐ㅓꁏ쀉F熞坰ﰐ㽮ￏဉ䖠슝䛿弟�їꈡ꓀ꄁ쀂鱐豠ꅷਁꏠ缀瀆劣ᅊ䑕통怆患ﰭ慤꿲뿳㿱䓲�功䛤쉅ｭ゜ᅗ䄌腔煗⁞F딧̓叐犒鹣斀ﵯ炝坧䝓ꗰ嫀ﵑﻯ뿿社ꈉơ삢ゞ〃ꍮ懶䥷꿀矓䂶倊瀇걏䩱ݓ॒䶂塲䊠䣳儇䁉놟ꂱ偡튱닿ꤏ摏鶌嫂䨰＃缄輅鬆⤃䁓凲 솱ꗽ淰ꂱἑ⼒
�≆Ŕⷾ㹔슝싱°퀖䂧ꎰ݀녰ၡꕃꏰꅒ�슝꼕俼뿹䓲ᰮᷯ꿿꼎⼖㼗ŏ柂僞냿᱁↯ṟ髌䦱✳⠟뼯ꡒ锛３텓切슝�흐ႶƤ뙈刖쁔႙Ͽ吠鿀ᯀ䛉鸁䥠ﾰ斧싱꼌뼍켢꿚헿㡟㥟홯휏���ｏ㼵濜翝꿠鿟㽄뿡㿨䡿䧏䫟䯯䇿⌏ⒿￏＺ�ｓ缻輼鼽꼾㿿䂿䇏䋟䏯囿䛏䜟Ｏ꽍彣潤罥车魧逰柶䀴儋ுႱﺀᥭࢁ낰꼠麆ꞡｓꈙ倉숉ℙ逦呭ꋧꙡꘀ擡ꍥखႂ睃〙튧ꝯܰ獄ⷼ鴭ꇊ⽒鶕뇂涒﹤♥炐满⸃ᦷɰ⦢￠ꑳὴ롭�漷콕뽺篿囏坿墏妟媯宿峏
～འὡ⽢꽨⽽⾋賿贿蹏荟佯僟緯鑟＿侕徖澗ｿཱྀᾂ⾃蓿蔿虏饟蠯西邏輏�뾥쾦�ﲩべ㇁０龝侘ﾮﾘྚᾛ⾜鷿鸿齏ꁟꍯꊟ릏ﾯ⾫澪徾澿翀迁龶徒鏿끯잏졯쥿놏눏댟Ｏ㾴侵徶澷羸边忌꾻볿쎿숿���︫潁⾰રρ퀰쮿ｏ忢ῌ⿍㿎俏忐濑習폿횏햿휯��澿쿲�汃ᡐ涰߷ઐ盁慪䃸쀰遱ᓯゐ瘆療浰瀕끪鄯ﳿﴟ￩Ῥ俯㿮＇忰టඏຟྯҿ엏ｿ迆뿾鼕꼖뼗㿿伀弁˿ͯѿ֏ڟޯᪿএ漑꼐ἧ⼨㼩伪弒ᑯ⭿ㄟ㈿㍏
＜༞켴⼠㼡䔢聴涃橀㶐挢汯w㫄潢掰㭫쁰遱ⵔ武楠鷺椰泵Ⱡ畬着欠㹐ᆴ敺㤺瀀≴⋿⎿Ⓩ◟⳯㑯䘟䜏弟⽈㽉堺쁲녌祐朰濛𢡄䵡ꅪ恃䱥㢳∱扑䅲䑹痱ⴠ⿰强⑃ㄭ煆淐씺灡伀扳w⁵⛯䁃䤯值⺿㱧懶䁬灱㵦㾠懲옐漺烐䃀ㅡヹꁪ玕爠䃠㸮洀欢⯰ヹ㵴忠愾歮䇗祬㽀擰ሻ学澠ǐ䁳䡻偙剅が义⁋�屜滸絽兛ꁛ킬䁃腋ㇸ畜烺롕꽝慙뼹㓟啯⋿Ⱑ㧰慀灁콓柺搾丯俏棟儿嵔劀称歐倠﹩異晑吟毟嘿巿禎踱卫䵐鸞琰杀㉝姿婟孯屿犏獯彵怏＝�རὣ
�㽥佦彧퉾㭾맟潰齾ཱ䑝﹁崓㻠猐璏疟皯侈㽹嶍�꽽ﾅ콿耿臟棯榯檿每緟䙓㹥勠哠敵탸⁏瑣ㄠ㋐⌰㨲∵灐Ὥ뾗쾘�扵ꍪム㆜睆ꉤ埁䎤卡浖撰ꁓ哴㹲璀ྞᾟ⾠㾡㳿ꔼꙏꝟꡯ鉳銟굯ྯἵ⼶㼷弼鼢徫鼻㳛떭犀䁃䅲멬ᆸʻ䇠恱䉊뛟䐏翿罋뽊㿀俁忂濃쎶䩉㸠泀‾敷價⁵⁰楷荴䶠洮殺猰჻傉ꂣ厅榠肅慄楶價䓚䅭便㷀曀킜ႊ禦郇胹이ᛠ浈厰禠胹朠㵯济區㺠쨠斑ｸ䃠ႊ쾫�ῄﾯ쿏탿퇟볯뉟돏듟뷯벿ﾯ翘쾾俅迄῞㿠똵澴
肅嵥윲楤幭㹰�㸐鷠濐ﹴ襳鱠짐㴔지帠Ｐ돊忓⿓꿧뿨�ￕ㣿㥏뙟랏힟�ꦯ羐놔ྫ㿱俲愽ལ끍㍳煟潵瓼䅥��ἀ⼁㼂伃์덌킢〾矮ၞ僉䵭ڤ��㿍镒徆謁塜ﻰꍮ台㾀ﬠཽ좨娄鱳咐僤僻卨䄠�戯迯＼ ㆃ뾹욺醃꼋㾄侅ᘗ圏ቭ⻅㔒摀灯祭낋〾䃉｡ྉᾊ⾋㾌伞弟侎徏⓿╿ᒎ᭟铿閏隟ﶯ㼭ᜯᐒゟଏట缯듸惻侜冝臥ꀴㄲ㍍㓟㗯㟿／䦢侣徤伻弼漽왬ὓᨏᬯ䔿熿歿ㅯ︵猳 ⇟⋯䧿磯⟏＿絏鼲켫ｇＮ༰䃿䅿䊏
䎟ꢯ媿寯巿／⽟㽠佡潔轧齨훿맟癔腤參냺異セღ偋鑯L㠏炐챑贈䖰ⵎ칕ᝓ쳭㏰ᤳ뼯彮濳齳꽴迹鋺졍╎仰泰迻罫꿽뿾樿耏脟舯茿獏ᙏ絮၎塚傰┰信材戀㌨ⰱ㌷郎肝⤵轻璆퇆Ⲻ�襵击嚻⼏ઍ嗿豟赟酯輏邏㆟长ｏ彪ﾙྛ�ｬ￭锏磏礯稿筏鵟総ｿ轾྅侄羫辬龭꾮ﾅ蟿蠏褟꤯늏鉟녏钿捯徢�渦ᝢ䘐峹⟸ち龻德澸羹辺쇿霿쌏鰯웯쟏죟鷯ｯ羞辟龠꾡꿃쾣�쯿ꦯꨟ뀯꾯��ｯ翛远龱꾲뾳쾴濗傋ᶹₐ፠䔀斠硠䅱ꁅꄹꕉ灉
ࡡ眀፩ ‸瘞ⅱ၎ç敥ｫ尓ι齥ꩦ迟羿迀슟킯ｿ쿄⿷꿊쿺�⿋㿌췿칏콟톯횏�ｿ㿞⼊㼋伌弍༅윖ၟ️ᐿᗟᛯ／쿿�ￒ࿔１꼟ࣿྟฟ┿♏❟⡯ｿ輒鿠꿡뿢Ἣ俳忴༰ѿ㖟〿㋿㌏？⼴�켼弙潀罁轂䏿䒟ᮿϟ㵟ԟｿ習⼟㼠伡弢�哿唏嘟圯堿剏㠯ⲟ༮콏敂뼹㫿㯏䯟小扏振搿敏｟⽩༿ὅ꽭뽮콯�僿䞯䢏䦟䪯殿䱯䷟ｎ꽟ὑ콽㽓뽙ｘ徂菿葯蕿蚏禟屏巏廟㲀楔詭期規楿ﾯ�쾎�羓ﾑྒྷ��裿鬿鱟
鵯鹿龏纟畿｟潶罷쾚ᾙ꽺뽻콼羍绿腿蜏蚏냏넏눟Ｏ㾳侴ﾦ龊꾋뾌徔闿뭯韟ꚏ㚿㜟섯및ￏ�꿆ﾙ鿈ᾡ㿌췿칏콟ꅯꉯꍿꖟﾯ쾧�䳖辻㿘俙ྪ툟굏긿둏탏忿ῧ���扻옏롿뤟먯㬷潦n慦業祬㨀慐祰畲荳濟㞎瑯票⊀�滠ⱳ탴䓄剐䅐뿉쿊＿俳忻濅￭过俺ἁ⼂ϿпՏय़퀟ාຯ켏�俠㿓俔忕濖���ﾟᶿ忩鿨弢漣缤輥鼦伙ﮇᷜ⦟䏃浯ⅰठ郼散탵癥敩瞀匠灵牥逭ᴃᬀ簀䐠灥坵탼퀭耚䡐䀮惽捩탴恲
⻠⼑쉀﹩ₐ晏⽦⻠弐耮迁鿂쁠ふ愠痸漠惃輯錰鄮倜㒢ᷙⵠᵡ㐀⵰繀ㅳ㉿㎏㆛㥯㎏䚌ﵱ楑慤ꈮ䀖‧･ꃾ숴⌯輻鼼꿃☟ᄨ⟣ࠇಏᠯ䖟⩟⃯ꝋ缻⽁谳〵え㡓�ꃴ쁠ﹲ㢐朠聎 ヹ攠䭴䰟㨯侯像젳ᵔᱠ梐ꄜ恏僵㻁㍶㌲㤹齒꽓凿垿塟㍯䗈䚟䞯䎿ｼ彈輇㽟콈�콣僼퀾〉汰ﵵ☁㐣࠳ㄻ丸㈀㔴帶椳ᴀ暏栴⺑셨齞潅楡汀庯Ｏཬ꼉꽯齦､뽲꽚뽛姿盏瞯岿滿狯ﮏﲿ翏⾺ｴ꽦쾁�ུ㰠丱℮橠翀㝰ᔮ㝰㣾ｼ㼨�㾍侊賿蚟蜟鄯礯矯铿锏묽硡强䓟錟辏Ｏ㾐侑뽿
쾀꾒㾟ﾃ徣釿ꖿ橏梉坐鴜讏ﾟ侎뾪ྭ꾦뾧龱꾗飿隿뗏䊏騟魏멟꼿翿ྱᾲ꾠뾡羳뾿艧൨‰셦➀琐㩰萯眯僆昮桬ီ椒脚ꃁ⽭鸢ᨠ슀伀셰往ᱢ貐歮1汥ᩤ܂郆倘ヵ筴奈聐剅䥌䭎씠쇟屜絮쥽쥁õ怟ꄧ挱쀏댏츿ﶄ鿋뵭븟갯퐏뺯틟ￏྯ鿓⿏㿐뿛侻徼��샿솟슯慿ﾯ뽢꽱뿪Ὺ㿬훿ￏ�켔�７俲ἚⰛ_ůᰯᴿﭏᾏｯ缠Ｆ༨伍弎漏缐輑टᔏﾯ뿰＃缜澸羹༚Ἓ鼡᷿ḿጿ⦯⩿⮏ﾟ꼬뼭뿼쿽㼧۷ਟ棃㣀
眨꼵뼶甇ᡟ㖯㥟ݏᘫ拥耗ᥤÒ眭遖灎ㄺ遰⁴敭ဴ浵蕀㬶蔿࠺撐뤠큎敮鍂晁堗ᠲ䩠䐬⥕牵偏噮䕓㬛瀽쩤朑㫴䀳ち片鼘Ἴ㷿ܯࠟ䠯ਿ䵏ቯ翯⼒�ｓཕｈ┖坢䚩읲驐⠜獓橙老倠2职ナ吠浩䁯礠␠⹁䱘ㄱ酋牢䷿候䊑῀坐�堬奟絯ꝡ䕓孡屏饟퉘搐愄幹你瑣扯튋蠀恞〲㌱탐㨳㌵彍怿齏彡潢罣轤衭潔罦权馏❗慄䉶䑱槀正祥漧�？齭꽫뽬⽸�ｰᅦ痰橢楥犰獏饟䁗䕒›慃耿츠퉖㼀庰牰楡粰伣漥辁ﾄ龈ᾇ裿謯⣿喟郯酿銏鎟ﾯ㼰伱弲漳ᾕ
佉罼徙髿魯鱿鶏麟龯䪿䮿ￏ�뾕ｎཐ轖콕辫龬귿꺯垿西詯뉿谏ꊟﾯ輟鼠㾷ﾲྴ⾶ᾰ뿿쀿셏쉟陯霏頟ꄯ｟�羣辤龥꾦뾧쾨�뇯텯틏폟퓯훿먏辏编輗뿍ꓘ潇䉯뢀晡㽴䋀䊠Ⲱ࿙믿�뵯짟��ﾯ뿢迦龏鿖Ῥ㿮쓿얯욿쟏즯쯿찏？⿍㿎俏忐濑鿽꿾¿Ǐ�Џｿ濤翥Ῡ鿧뼋澸羹鼎૿ୟ౯ൿᒏᣟ켙�鿺翱迲鿳弘࣯ﭟ✏﷏Ｏ꼃弬漭缮輯缣꼅ۏ㋏✧ 䕦䀰ጠG敶ဴ杩❡〸끂퀷偅畱楾偅聂셅ᄸ儹｢鄷Ĵ怸큂酇舺†旴♡
潐8䈹嘺ぅ㣗帀䗠灐뀴年楠냠慣獵큂圻♷검瀠偅⁵㹯氀㱿㧔楑槀㐐榡㩁溲榿䍐㡠㻐⃢䜠潠逐㬥烀䂃業恇灡烾+爸轻툤༲筧⏧㼀漐㡣㠐⣐瀾瀷퀼쁂兀桃忱㈐㜶생ぁꁪ儵䀕卷턺㩵珰⸩྿⃚♉㍐რ뀗쁂쀳뀻䁫㑂㶠뗠逓㐨疀偦煩䉣䆰煩瑥㠩淦曝獁꽊뽋챌♂㦀ﭒ㐻❦㠒平㣀㹠ꀺ8恞녂ှ퀸嗿㫣暂㥁㨱荰㺢㿃韆彑潒챌啔珲䁡恞ꁍ扖�嘠㯓茴灏䅁⽹ㅇ뉿萻䅕䏿䒟䖯䚿㫅䞂㴱呠㽲ꀽ뉖세Ť楳拾䀴푕홁镣⡟큜滾�퀷逐⑥鉝耴柜㽵
㹡䋀械褼儹㯿㮓㴥奄婿ႏ惏愿ｏ輲缒輓鼔輢ὲ⽳㽴痿癏穟ᜯ纟羯肿ￏ�弨㼟传弡佾齼蜤⣿㛟⨯ㇿみ躿辟邯쾑羉眳�꾔罰꾂侙髿魟鱯葿蔿虏╟♿ﾏ澖꼨ᾤྍ输쾒꾨뾩ꯏ곟雯㏿㐟㔯꼿ﾏ뽷콸羴�ｬ꾹뗿뙯띿뢏뾟絏셟鴿ￏ�ￆ࿈Έ⾟㾠価蟿쇏規⓯ꋿꎏ꒟ꖯ쾦侭微翘这鿚꿛뿜횿붟넏뉯푿䉤ᄸ⳾쿠㾾忀迏鿥꿦쎯�＿俴念濶⿕࿌῍⿎鿱퇯퉟퍯픯ʟ흏㿞翝�（༊Ἃ쿽ѯ咻浩輎ﴟፏᐿᝏᛯｯ缗伛俱꼌켟�Ｂ⓿
ȏ璘𢡊ﯟ`ᴿﾏ？⼀㼁弃缅＋㼋㓿㕿㚏㞟㢯⮿ဏ？⼑弻켘�佀；⼫辺믿䖟䅿䈿䍏䑟䭯ḟｯཌྷ輥꽐뽑콒��⟿⧿⨏䴟ⱟⴿ婏㾼꽜뽝缮輯뽖꼱뼲㼹嗿桏楟橯歿沏徟㱏積换拫輼鼽Ꜿ;潦瑮昭浡椀祬债灡畲捳ዟ澧桴礔瘠狰偣獮ℬ䁹⹄쁹偒䇾⽎㽏署梁穱齼罳瓿疏皟瞯羿䧏狟䭯뽾辅龆꾇뾈쾉龍轻嗿鈿錟鐯锿陏摟垿ﾯ뽘콙��｡ལ澄旿ꈯ朿浏淏꘏㿯ﾩྫ뾝䲀ྡྷ㎮潃浌ꕰ膐挀穥敀瘀敩⁷畓ᱰ牥²炡炟⁼롄灥腵뉀鹀瓰삱䡊낲腴槐祣牀뉐뎁榰
传﹦둦뉐늀䗰䟿䠏숰둵憐⁵䝯돐εƳ삠낲ኵ䦹킡톱ꇷ롰뇠现ﾶஸ�붋럿䛼솁摩덡낚邫荥뤐댲뾓쇿／Ὀ隣膬原瞫ﾌ龐ྜྷ줿꿏ꑟ뾻엯랟㗼�ꃌ뱓禐爰邼柎邳邴瑥迏鿐뽯퐟픿롏吸킡¡ཨᆡ탓쁹㈳㤳㧾࿗Ῐ쿛�㢸࿊쯿찟윯쳬诏춯츿住㿨삀䃃畬熁䀦㐣㬳㠱烒㔴㌶热ﾡꓪǭ줏慢蹿ｯ⿷῟㿞Ώ⿼濡忳胿脯㸿烈؟ܿ獏翸겤⸱킥ワ餮㟠8ş걯ʯｏ忱꼑뼎༑輊鼋鼕忾ﲏᡯ슏愫㩸俤죿តᒟᖯҿԯ？꼣
漈켧⼖뼩燐샬賛⇿わ⸏⾿ㄯ⭿？⼬༶Ἔ⼝㼛Ｙ迆뼞㻏㒯㕯㙿▏☟㜯毯⽄둨暐肫⁴㩰⼯䩷⻀鑦桬育鹩旱䘮⽭•灆彤ꅢ渀䝫땜数氼鹤䭲鰀秀璠{奈䕐䱒义䬌䨠䭏屚湜빽䵽亱礀ꍰ곐ㄑ翧䓯㝿劯僴洏轁齂缰姿䌟坏㌿塿嬏原咟ﾯ⽠뼿콀ཞὟ潥ཅ䟿术支漟洯ｿ轮齯꽰罴㽦潶ཛེ篿簟累縿饏騿魏鱟ｯ뽶辞鲟쾃�龟꾠ꇿ羿ꏿꓟ걯酿銿ￏ�ﾕ�㽲罩轪羍駿环琏生蠯ꁯ㳯㷟羞辟ྦ꾡뾢澩꽸ᾘ귿껯냿넏눟踯腟舯뼿徇徭꾫辊㎏ロ갸Ὰ⾻
ᾝ쾹뾽鮋喛拊噤⵰�툀胠ㄺ瑰洠롥뒀浵쌻鯵㩓釉搀팠湀읥씃嗖좛鰲Ⳑ었谩畐犲샓瑮쎛诉섻ꋠ乤极㌺퇄丰ﾐྜྷ迀鿁辋龌꿌뾎퇿邿韟陟횟흏��꽿濍ὡ���戛䙼䭲Ề게릊䐈癡楄正数⁹�䥿퇖楀팡潐䐺䁴ţ偋潹捦灡嵥嘠텰⹐ｧｋཌྷ╏迧鿨ꗩ彑勿돏�崟帘捝搯랯ㇲǐ﹢�픙윁ꌰ變�ྭ濽￠쥓፯翣윝桔ꃉ摳ꁡⱹ传扠灖쭅㧠〈〲렱㑀㫢倠כֿﰏﴟ㿾寡հ؟㴯혝뙐큰仰ࢠ吰챩潭郄샥⹁⼎�ୟᝯ
യຏྟү碡扵Аᇿ刈䔠›慃嘠囿쑰ܠࢀ᭠ᦿ�輠Ｃ鼧ἦ⼧Ｊÿ⼿み㊟뒯떯쾶�ἴ뿍缛弸漹缺㯿㲏㶟㺯쾿퀯턿㑏濓翔ￚ㿚轊齋꽌뽍�⣯⥯兿⬏䆟ꎯꗿ／㽖ｑནὔ⽕㽞佟惿慟㕯㘏㜟䀯扟䋟ｿ轃齄꽅뽆콇�潐烿燏狟珯痿夏骏鯯뽬ꑷ牄ጮ墖殱瘱⁑べ愔ꄈ푱敵恹읩†ョ쁫璾Ⴥêဢㅾ�≴¢⠠剂ㄠ㌹㛾烉njჯ턡䛩콖埗壟椐샰ࡴ礰鞐偹ჯ孬澠쭵뷐쉿歩绠綐웱珰끽礰敐揩ツﭶ䁿텾艳嫏瞯屟柏ｷ�ﾌྎ�輮ར雿靟顯
饿涏擏斯暿ￏﾚｩཫὬ⽭㽮佯烿癟ꧯ갏괟ꄯ？�ｺ쾯뾏쾐澔럿茏葯륿뗯뚯랿룏辿徕⾚࿄⿆㿇鳿鷏黟쏯솯ꋿꌟꐯ＿꾳徦ΐ羨ﾮ㾮꿗뿘��컟냏닿댏�佸�䅐杵�⁰鼸〈썿ㇳſ散郑翯罢翑콀揀䁾ㆆ罃큐晀潲罭䊳罿褐≐⅐蟐Ѐᓠ䢐蜻羀犐샲톈ョ浭蝛纁柔郬腧璠綿ѡ࣐縀曃რܐ绐⧮윀抓B蟀ચ怀