HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (7)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
ˁﾰ育ἃ俺忻벵틮Ⴌ魀唳噯坿咋ꐙ䍰ၙ턂÷ɭ抰挏？ﯬ劗ㆥꔭͮ䋒Ʋ０쁧僸ꁆ僴恘焂㍡÷曒䶟䨿䎯⸴涿滟忯枟栟ꐯ伣뉒柾倯儁齭佲뱯쇫掚磿礏ꌟ泘撅ꗯ堁廒⽄ݐꤠ䠑☇ｒ⃪ၔ탰륬㆗烯髿䛠䉵嶲废环뚿Ｅ�꼫弦侉徊༧Ἠ⼩⫿⬿虏ㅿク閟Ｏ뼲㼹缸뾙쾚�ྒ瓿疿诏ꋿꏏꓟ賯赿ﾏ龎꾏뾐쾑�ﾔ뾧響頟鸯ꚯ둟땏뙟띯�馟肁蕧尰獁焻넺峻憡浰煪ꁙ、阀뇯䚪樂媒艀娔檲鼑職Ⓘ燳ჷ敤⛴嫟慲樳䘠濢䃸恘䏱猴ⴭ�拲薀틮˻뺢
攴職뇁펾ꝿ恪叿窒쓐쑴뻯裰｟꾦迋鿌徧澨義辪龫곿궯꺿꿏냟뇯돿뤏ﾏ쾸ￛ῞俔쾠�컿츯쾿탏퇟ￒ࿔㿗￩忙濚羚秚臿花️ﾟￏ�￭⿱忴俳૿ﭯﯯ༯ဏᄟሯ＿弇㿤企Ἐ⼙㼚켁˿ϟӯۿࠟयਿｏ༝漌缍３꼛鼩꼪뼫⳻ᓏ䇩胀ꂀ녛⁔弡ㄏ㋟ᳯᶿỏ῟⃯༢ἣ⼤弧伦뼽漨⺿䈯䍏䑟䕯桿䏶₽槝涠䁘聜녛뭶䠱뿀낁惂聥采晭｠肻膀�輴齌꽍㼵伶㟿㡟㥯㩿㮏㲟㾯㻟ￏ罘潇꽆ཝ⽟㽠嗿ᙟᜯ伿晏期栯伿ￏ
�ｒཔὕ⽖㽗佘毿娏孯慿槿瞯碟禯콺｣ཥ�꾀뾁쾂菿毟汯浿溏澟炯熿࿏퍲僅Ⴞ悻∽潣氒탇戺胀正医郁惂昭ゼ쁩㫀䧕榰ソ쌬泀뱇輠䬔穰㩥悉ﱰ≴⽳㽴併彶�ὼ陿靯顿馏ﲟ쏇鶐企䩭枰ꃀ뭍鍱旀鷋蠃㆜셲牢�冕얿绰詐鎿綄貑䙓ꃂ洔먺懰타獏띢탇佾錦羠㲩ྡ给㳇뵡숐晀䂎⁉輛䪠㪐ꃀ郁慀圱끉炻ひ⻐悎깭밢䧀麰琰䂎蹟峁歮첑傐譤晲샰쒠笐奈䕐勀䥌䭎ꠠ꤯屜絮ꭽꮡﷰꂓ톛就䩵ﳰ궸翿놩ᾊ쾄侦酲偽ꂉ킑ᾤꕧ㸺羴ᾟ⾠렻ꊏ呉킭䂣僸灩
⇆澶⾥辻侧괻䪣殱ꂣ炝끉䁴柾芭꾩뾪쾫�뿂엃꿿끟졭눯덟쁯딯뚏ﮟ꾷⋏〻쁉뾿츿쇯寧钭䕁ꌰギ炎�엿쟿�즟낏�캭촯俖ῐ⿑㿒ﾸྺΆ⾼紘敓䂏ィ畔腥偉捏⁴㐱偉镇㈰㔺쁲㹰畀䙢な䚁摷ᇳ䥗ィ慃낣嘠¾牔ｿ迱鲌鿵꿶뿷쏸뿢ｏ蕟虿螏貟玿랯ﾋඍ퀅蹲鍀犠첑૯ࡑୡげ燑骰㾓弆闿魟ၿᆏኟᎯ鐢⁉蹬瞀䥥䃐灵眠瑩삽끉䭳�௰䂩합䓐癡땩큉뵄斑䁊₎䴠惚鷐析䨠琀ᠭ䠠¾䩹 穧ᡯ丠邽肎턚﹥へ�
鹠ﰰﴟᐫ_ｏ༠ἡ⼢꼌ἃ⼄㼅༎⣿྿ᔟᒟ⹏⽟歯缰ጇ핯旐芭ꐗ뱩灭邎倪䂏⃮鵯ﲐ獴ꃙ⃭吙₎怙껿᪀⏳⎟㝯㣟⓯┟Ｏ㼦꾈뾉�缧꼪�刺度䈼䅟䉯赿ề�鹐踀썀徃畱濸整쾑鼻輪鼫ἲ㫿倿兏剟卯鱿鵭�邎깷᥀涐樂﨟אָᴿꉿ훥抯豊ꧽ湀䃴킣肏굋 行ᢵ獄㑔䮀梀炣䇤⼯㽢岿帓️缼펀ઁଏ팖寡퓏⾏鿕⽦붧戮䁕獯洮�踀ᦐﺀ��溏潯�ﾟ꿟齴깵�輺Ὤ�緿⽟㉧뽤⽚㽛峿䡏᧤䭐㖡蒱㈺팱䵐ﾃ྅ᾆ蟿讯豯赿붏澣
佪彫�쿁潫ﰱ㌵翃ｰིέྚΈ矿쭟鼵芝箿飯縟缏？⾀龐꾑뾒쾓ྫᾬ귿긯꼿끏녟ﵯꐿ랏뾯뾸༻Ἴ⼽ἧꐉ둶䩫烠୵㚀魀뽰ᾴₜ낈燀ĝ久鰭单൨ĝ‿㌳㽩䡿빟䍿쎟쒿䧏䪿䷂ᣭ买ၶ႟䭬뮿䶟潕㾺㿐俑忒濓濇曻麝礰䀶傠Ŷ炟最⡢ㄳ㜬㗐쬩횯ᮄᝐ甑ን혬痯�⾦Ｏ羥濜翝ῡ鿟꿠龁멟먟볿봏？⼾㼿�俈忉濊翋�췿캟햯퐯ﭯﲏﶟﺯῖ㿘俙꿹漂濢伆ꝿ湿杢霰尙⟸ち鼋弇漈缉輊ᇿጟ៏ᣟｿ迮鿯꿰뿱꼓�ᬏ羚隷?ᪿ⥏⩟
ｯ缫輬꼁뼂켃�濚闝槀逶삕齥㔒빐楸섐镡揀褠䧁邙慒⁘楷蠠癀炏섐鹁㘰旰步籣ฏ딟뚿⿊ཿၿ㶏ﾏ꼒鼠⼾㼿�彁潂켔䟿᨟䪯䮿䳏ᯟᰯᴿｏ弞漟齇輡弦鼳缨Ｎ姿娏嬟尯崿問昏㏶ｏὠ［⽎뽤콥�뽏僿减⋟⓿意⛟漯墏ﾏཟ佞ὴ⽵㽶佷彸罢ヿ㆟㊯窿䏿䑏罟䛯ｿ潔輸鼹ᾅ�ﾂ྄諿䢿賯榯遏酏鉟鍯ｿ辔꽪뽫콬当ﾌ罕輢滿漏队焿爿硏秏ꏟﾤྦᾧ⾨ᾢ辈ｽꇳꯟ䋒㝥�觿誏ﾟ꾋�ྫྷﾲྴ軿铟뷯빯뽿삏솟ꂯｿ得澘羙辚⾻꾜뾝쾞꿿ꁯ췯ꎏꤏꢏ틏팟Ｏ㿔
俕忖Έ龬꾭뾮ௐ哸浩쿙侷澹鿈��벏힟Ῥ㿮俯㿎⿆쟿쫏쭯챿�츯ﾯ⿻쿐俗迖뿿케���ٿＯ輋俧翶ﾅ྇뼐缌輍ྟᚯᢿᩏᯟᳯ༞⿱㿲俳忴濵鼘▟✯⣟璘謹ￏ�缄輠輳鼴꼵㚯㞿⫏ޏ抌ᬯᙢܟ뼇켈휉昻湯t昭浡汩㩹傀灡特獵༯�濧桴⁹၂ᅲ耮獮䐬桠䐮⻢偒㵯ﾟ᥆騼뽇鼾꼿뽀콁�䫿ᗯ㴏ត䤯僟冯势ￏ�뽘꽆漠㽝佞彟惿慯⽿⋯⏟⓯⛿娏Ἤ⼭㼮轏弰彭缲Ｘ㣿焿狯瓿甏瘟栯䯯썻⽭䍹潃灭끰⁌挄䕥
敠楶睥⃀畓数絲氐膐遪⁼敄異恌綫潐琀큼絈瓀楴䑣牠ꂰ酽쁾⁎传晦恿遽~ᄯሯጿ끊疀ꁿ畡፯缀耏縓欑締翀⊀妄遬쁼뽳ﾀྂᮃྉಃ䱆룡摩繡攢盐斠ぎ蓿繂讣谏ጟ湏瞶檑ｳ蝶뽛⽨�潺�ﾊ郓莯㔌霰厰ꂇい냭犀⁎ꂇ鹧縀羠ﲠ瑥龚꾛⾊侟徠䢃哶汨鸱䓠跠㈳㤳ꈹꌟꄯ＿�䢃ᾕ⾖㾗ﲒ�埿긟颿饏덟䭏軠罐Ӱ畬酌⌦㌴л㠱肝㐲㘵꼳肸Ὥ뒵ᆸ렮⹁犸껷鐟귯慲삸⾼꾭辻姿뼿똯됟쉿ꤿｏ⿆㿇羬澾࿂佋彌켉쐿뙿턯퉏썟澏㇌䘮鴸힐㓠⸷큰︷쬸챯
睿춿뱟��ￏ鿕꿖꿠濉翇迣鿤跱愻㩸徯龓꿞�쿏퀿펿㿡쿴킷鲦鿚Ώ刺�𢡊ﰿĿＯ㿨俦༅龑쿩�뼉翿Əȿ뜿栂缍暠遶灴⼺⾄ᕷ⻐汦絨ነ潩攁ᄮ洠∯o耑扟溌ቫ聬斀摬鉩ᘇ朐䓠瓀䡻偙䖀䱒义⁋引ᛁ屪湜絽섘မ䓷源矰ㄡ農輏뼂О᯽洟鼌꼍迻⼤弎伢⎏☟ắᾯ⮿ਿἩ⼪缰ἐ⼑㼒Ｒ⾱닿〿솯㨯㠿㦏㪟㮯輿伱罁ἦὅ⽆㽇佈䧿摟敟景板䆏槏檯ﾼ�ｐ뽪콫�ཋｮ烿瘏瞏岟巏廟忯懿／ｚ弽鼴꼵뽚뽤⼾㼿䃿协殏߿
椏檏熟？뽬콭罴콃⽣ｸེύ糿累夿䱿䵏剟硿癯꽕剚䂸眸藧蘟嘯念Ὠ쾄뾈ꭖ啦晢擰ℙⶀꙷ鴐㫰瀱璐洠荥疀轭㛵踻曵㩓ၜ麹湐鉥逃曖㋈큧ⱊ얓圩畠鹲滐瑖썦讔谻擠鄙㌺톏ᤰ隠棢謏ﾏ龌齖꽗꾗콙뾜潢慿ꆯꉏꍟꑯ顿敿护鳥抋ধ牆퀖鳩썷ꡳ蓊腐魰᧰Ⲱ†楔潭邏⁹䄤Ꜯㆬ鬱戁ｲ覜Ơを쁮ᾧ갮뾧쾨鵽南톔꾪뾫�逡Ѥ祡삭捏潴孢耡샗괰ꃀㅀ䂃㔺괳䵀龮꾯뾰뇏닏돟鷯呈땯뛟⇯ퟨ䐧癡楄揠敫❹�鼬ﾼ뭿및윟뺏뼿쁏땟畱扸敪Ⴙ꿁뿂ퟨ⁒㩅䌠蹡⃰耡킭慲
Ⴙ㿌뽲쫿瑏탟폯푏흟훿흿ﾏ忛ླྀ侥�￡꽿胿膿苏顿쮿ￏ�￬`⾚㾛侜鸟齯ꕿꗿ憎ﯯ﷿／῾�漁ῲ烿؟ʟ͟ѯտﾏﾟ꼏뼐켑翥迦鿧쿰㼓錄祐｟⼡㼢伣弤漥）ས杇⡏䜂潯�瑦わ႒ₒ⠬／꼧⼍弘뼭켮漲Ｑ㗿�◿㫟㭏㱟㵯༕⼗伙弚漛缜᷿ẏᾟ₯➿䰿䷟仯ཐὑ㼩伪�뽓뼳㓿㣏㙯嫯߿࣏巟姟ﾟ꽚뽛콜罣弹⼾ｧཀྵ櫿欟䤯䃯䇏䋟泯䖟／⽇㽈佉彊潋罌ｒ竿箏粟綯线惏咟囿ὗ長ぶ映ꂔ邏冹隉癰荥椰慧
傇鈓蘠珰鐠燀極钿釀闰蠱蜒蠱扱䂮虿莱蜡銀靀褁澢敐懺聵蝯蠠襢鑶螠欠䂮삔荰瓐삭䂹塣畡鉳詀睷끵혠鑰쓀澀₍깬譀뿴熈₹炸솃ꆸ튉롮�킒ʎ偯킖彯諀ዠ퉰涠险懐灰竿贰蜀쪒瓯耂脇쬯㍇ひゎ捯ょ瀨蚟讐菰鄀迠䍱깨㘲ⴷ退멐萀轱誗襓痱ႊ⥳崮～䤠聵釷苠諠毐抏삃쁢⣚ꂃ땵뢰揑킑톸斠捴⤮ڈ땭饳髏鯟䋬끵犈咊蟽昀䉶鎇₮肇삉ꗿ蜐괠釀跑ꀰ蜐ꗰ＃ꊉꆵ冈邉˓羠ꇋ鮏哬እ慳삭鳻ꗀ₂怭咊惒邞郹祡阯콑訒꒤鉡쾓�ꊉ冖肌銣ᖮ
谟盀ꔐ蟒돡猡扩荿ꑠ郴닶꺵ꁈꬁ滰ꝿ蛸忰듀걄莲Ꞡ朑痮膎킑譨袩話ﾳ䖊撌龨꾩｟徯澰꾁懿抯掿燏솿숿썏쑟ｯ翅俉ｦ콫쿍�矿溏潯灿춏쭯玿碷／侅⽺꾀꿜뿝쿞��芯蒦뾿톟ｯ翪迫忓濔翕꽴뽵翥矿�紐ῦ侂徃澄鿾쟿Ͽ쪏�및봯ҿｿ輅鼆꼇弎迌伐ᓿᜏ홯鼐Ῑ㽴꿱뿲��ﳿﵯ❿⢏⦟⪯⮿●徿⼌輀鼁缥爯蝂ⰱ⿿⼿༟ṟ㒏㖏㦟＿뼷켸鼼輒�ὁ⽂㽃䓿䕏ᬯᰏᴟ䀯㺏张漡缢ἳ鼤㽑뼦㼭⳿啿囏域壯䰯ハ
읏弱漲멓楔嵭㩯콜༽㽌ὢ⽣콦佥彦櫿䀯嬿溏澯炿燏狟�뽈콉�Ὦ潬ཎ僿怯勏繏哏婯嫯茯｟澄羅辆�彺｝ཟὠ諿朿梿迏樯端टટﾯ徔ᾐ⾑㾒侓ﾙ彭黿齿ꂏꆟꊯ璿痏盟ｷཹ㾜⽻㽼鮩쾎羫곿綏繟ꕯ肏膏袟ꐟ缯⾷㾸侹徺澻⾮ⲋ㵢뮲饢访豟赯㭷f湯慦業氀㩹慐祰獵꾲蝡瑯票₊냅뉲渠ⱳÈ栐䐮젮劀䅐鳿黿섏줿삹쬺쉟쌿ｏ忄濅翆迎꾘⿁쾚翍퓿핏홟흯쩟ꑏ／�￢ῥ辳羦辧ꣿꦟ�꾟낿뇏폟댯ᾶ龼�迵鿶꿷뿸蘭쾏ﳏ䏣浯瀦僴샏散É癥椀睥
匠灵r簰䐠履異Ðꃲt䡰ƥ瑠郐捩È㑲ୀ怂텩⃀晏罦、ꀁ쾔�‴䀃畡漠ꂖ꼂댃ǿƀ͠߂אּ逇怀ѳ֟گһಏ얯갆큆榁慤숁烩敀탑䌂꼎뼏ﭖ﨓ᣏ齿篳鼎伔갆〵倛卮䀋탇‴텲ீ杀⇧ʠ̀敀ṴἿ൏럏Ｃ检퇯∇좀ᆀ㎖㌲㤹◿⚿Ⓩ⫟⭿ڏᣨᦿￏ�鰖缛뿚弲＜켧ᆀϰ沐큵☱‣㌴ㄻℸ㈠破㘵㰳㦿㭔⺱㮽⻡ሼ뼱輘ሱ㱡｠켿伱⼿�콂뼹Ἰ�ⷿ⻏ⳟ䧯䫏ミ䈟䔏ﾯￏ澍Ὀ켹ｕ⽇ㅬ㠮〡聛㜴⻲烴㠷ཏὐ忻ｐ䃿
怏嵟彯妿娿摏䵏輏Ὃ⽧㽨�硡㈺㼗꽦佢彣潤�콥狿坟瘟摿磟㵯㮩⩰＼꽰㽞뽾ཽ潡�⾀콹竿蓟檿每槟裯ᖯ洿ｯ置徍ᾃ⾄㾅콳�龆鉫㫟梢䀃鑦猪琰瀠⼺眯炙昮沔Ũ椰ꇲ삔淰∯閠∠钐撠扟샯歮ಖ 㱥摬㋭낙胫惈筴䠀偙剅䥌⁋ﾘચ屜絮綾憜난ト郲쇺㘱⾓徆꒡뾞遭鄿罏Ｏ쾧ﾑ⾂뾦侪侢徣껿軟软걿궿듏錟钿ￏ�龶켴�侴콄�⾼뷿븿뽏썟됯엯ꤟ좿쿉�ￌῪ엿퉜퍿풏ｯ翰꿎鿲꿳⿺㿻濠翡�삟룿뤿�｟忨쿁�鿯龋꾌
윟ￏ鿼꿽뿾쿿�῝횿ﰟ﨏㯲㣠蟻ࣿি�ࢿ౯�쫵撐₥眭뀩逡㪀瀱⁴敭 疴፭㮕锒�즐냟敮ꌕ瘔㉨烫ᜬ⥥Û뉵≲湰ᡣ㬫耐撢㆝㩧ጳぱ䂝ྯု���ｯ张迟俥Ｅ༧ἨᲯ꼟ᯟ⮏扽ꬬ⩢粩牆炚㱭揻ᨯईࠠ慄ᕶ䒁捩火祥嬠༮蚘Ⅹ㩯⹄д捀騁礀景慣数㝝湰뀳₥析髿鮯鲿鷏㛕㜟㠯ꀵ／ᶡ⼼㼽㌸弲⼂꼭좫嵞�㽅鈆ḱ抡狾꤬ꄣ퀕惲ｈ籇꽅ﯟ䮯⽿傏厀焘Ｐ㈓氏呷ᡨ獀慤禠捏ꕢⴠ耚嘹⏀㇠㨴糱⃐䵐齉꽊뽋콌
᷷冼⽿哫A꽓뽔虬倞စ速傝쁖楔፯㐰䅐尮ⲿ婯翟ｙ뽥⽝㽞ㅓ㱵橢ꀷ轓轠顡䕒㪐䌠ቡₐꕖ＠쀒ざး潪忶罨翸濿焟牿皏琯疯禿亏콃ཾ⾀㾁伃弄漅ۿ艿Ჯ機蘏蟯觿訏？⾋㾌侍켝�侃༢⏿⤟⢟駟騟鬯鰿⩏ﾏཷὸ龟㽺侐꿲뿳쾤ꃿꆏꊟꎯ鶿겯귏껟ﾯ꾃뾄쾅ﾎ澱ᾑ⾒鏿鐿镏陟靯顿鶏뼿｟激翁迂鿃⾨꿩뿪羽왱䐲♢ㆧ놹㭉ꀵ유抠埱焱橵읥槐쀕㔠뫀瑀፟㢰炐철炡瑪㉱ 䈨⁒㤱㘳ᨐ炡㵰炠㝡ꗖꙏ檧ꀰ㽩瑐쁖È舓쟋㷀沠₪畯瀚㋎槞悺Í懌逕챳㔠뷀샇
㝥헳퉠በ盐냍췽獁㿑⾩쿅侫羶濆��絏뀟ￏ�侼⾳㾴侵濩럿롯륿몏뮟벯붿뻏必忷濸翹迺鿻濝忇죿쥯ﹿ��կｿￒ弈ἄ⼅㼆伇－ኯᒏᖟｏ忬濭ἒ漐鿰꿱뿲ἂ⇟﷿╿☏✟⠯뼿伩伝翿輀鼁ᘢⵏ邠畁畧쀭㠠著囏컀䄳췁捱ὥ췰䇎냍ဣ챣횰푰춡ꇀꀞ牦浯⏎쵂뾀샗恰烕灓핈鷰Î䅲흐㕁涀항귱䓍㕧㭁朠ა쭴�ꄲ넶恓遖㏍㑠你恖ꏌ뀳敡䄮匶慂祬7郋⏎号푡홀烐耴ꀽ췩睑䅨桐ὩὈＫ㷿ᳳ㓀쿃ⶤ㊰할퓒ﺐ㙯쵠�ि퍿
噜핀𣏕항琠䀱ጹ㏎뜶뇋㊾ᅂᐴㄻ㋎䈼홯烖䃌倮㡰풁㯀･背船䀠샔攻烣噾懀橤䁱퉉ǎ䇼挱㹍㼯ିಿ像ﾏ�⽑㽒�彔潕༑嫿ᘟ巯庿忏ᡯﾏ鼚꼛齚켝�＠齢⏿␟⨯⦯烯煏牟獯ｿ鼫꼬뼭켮潮⽷⽗ཻ姿杏䈿䎿箟緿茏ﾏ⽿㾀뽛쾇齡澋羌辍軿掟搯政晏衟桏楿ﾏ齪꽫侐콭�彵齴ﾝ鿿ꀏꄟ瘯睏硟祯鱿？鍅ꤶ⃐炔剂郋⇐㑟찅춠캰쬣㎱炝Ｐ酁瀹䃌퀵炔烖臌췧㬑㲏枒㝯캲䨅㧒睯䄵郋桧냿㗀䷐쯲钱耰苿茏会ꁅㄻ呈䃔樠䄱繩ꩦ㢂㫯䋥뎯팿䡜냿ힰ䴂퀐
丠伿ꑏ䁿횅㉓뚰䦃㭉㓠ﲀ畤莿၍ꙋ삅⁆㋗勞Ⴭ逵၁顁췐稐䥳參ҭ꽋둌烏⁆祤䴩㴐䄃㏲ｶ膻샔䂦ꎪ⃐ꂘ씋꩐懁냏⸰ㄶ쳭捠၍㑢묐㬰唠匮燉懖쌴탯킱쇀㋠狡Ᾰ⾹巓㤷䵴霐最၁Ⴂ倨㑥檀熿䰠䉂銶灡혩뭂볏뷟䃯䏐씵꼑沀폑攻쏹猵끨䢰큧䳳㔰ﶠ뀸쩲앑좵㎖㔳줐뼐眴䀶冻땍ჅӋ착쿍채Ⴠ怴䓐烉�ꬳ싱뮠㙑䅱좲⣰䅥㤴⾲愦觞猦籠㍁〴Ǘ₦㎮ﵸダ㡥낀긳쭡㮐ꙥ�凅Ὅ烄퉥퍟ｯ翔蕀ℵ냈潂蓿虏铿쿶鿺⾊ﾎ⼀㼁
伂髿醿銟鎯ο閿雟韯ྙᾚ⾛㾜依쾣꼑뼒ᓏᗟꖿꛏᣯﾏ迸鿹㿽뿻켟俰忱꼢ỿὯⁿ⢟﹏ȯ⳿ￏ�Ｏ뼎鼅꼆뼇漬⫿િ௯ᰏ㬯ᇟｏ켗弿潀罁轂齃鼷켙ᯟ㳯䵦ꃩ䇙烄ᇇ꽡떡ꭣ귱랠묇�鷰ᆶ뙧왴焐깵ﾡퟨ㧉ῄ邶Ꮬ⊫聋�䣰炠鿯켣㲺ｓი逧郋ꃩშꃂ〴엿쫡㪀쁠산乢僨옾홷➐垠瘁遈䃙怽�䙿빏㡵낰챮原캿떾�潋耺䁒ꃩ㩢亐啞뙁禒肶捾逧凯酦⃨郖燊ꁈ恷慟⑯嫟｛轆輦鼧꼨鼶Ὧ烿焯爿癏⬟ミ窯箟ﾯ뽼
콽漼伳弴漵㽺轸㣿㦟㪯䪿㰟觟㺯䗿ｿ뽄㾎侏徐澑澅罇轈䧿钟琏甏砟瞿鬿楏ｏ彪⾞ﾚྜᾝ쾣꽹绿ꥏ꩟詿脿舟Ｏ㾃侄㾦澆羇辈꾊럿豟鏏鉏뮏볯뻿뼏뼟ᾳ侕徖澗낶�細煑亠䶠垢ꁀ㡠㗬啷曣枓შ탋罌䷿妋杠侁��仳ﭚ佑啒숿齏ꁯꅿꊏﾟ㿒뾤꾲�迗࿖ῗ곯�꺟ｏ徯澰羱俜龳꾴뾵쾶럿룟맯샿뽿？⿵濁翂迃鿄����큟톯ﶿﺯ㼅�濝翞俣Ἅ⼎ဿएＯ㿫俬忭濮翯述俶₯↿⋏刺﨏ײַＯ켝脦압鉦僉遍⍖蛇
凯컰졁ὄ欐⇉恐䀖獾ၧꀚ慞腤엉䁙罰䀨䅥怚倛ꀇ聒�꽫뽬伦唧ネ᭶읐Ɛ怨⌦㌴ㄻㄲ㘸⤸㖀⤰ퟏ쐲ဩ〵㔩ⵑ舵䁙旬剸侰ㅰ鼖켊툋憾퀵뽨켃繢晫�덧鄚聤셋塣쬠錮⼻㼼⭄ヱ㆟ﾯ漹伆弇�缉뽈ཇὈ䧿䨯丿ଏ侟勿厏咟ﾯ뽕１༓ἔ⼕㼖罐弘᧿ᩯ㕿᳟ᶟắ▿ｿ⽦㽧佨彩彝㼧伨弩ﳿ䮯䷿瀏俯崯䀟䇯ὶ�ｳཱུ뽻齑꽽埿腿艏荟坯姿娏嬟Ｏ㽜⽾彞潟律澌뭟湍戥쁮@煤ㄺ쥰콰詐甐淚ꖓ鈻溥㨣a죻즀源ာ슕蚔顮䀵澕ㅀ`㔬㎐怩彰탉胍烏鍮㮘逻撐
誡渐㩧錳め懋髿澡迟逿彏悯鮿扟澠､罫뽪ﾤྦᾧ⾨鳫洯扴㮠ꩢ涿ꀭ쎭챆涐縺翏귟뽿覱窬⾳羮辯衐蜀ꂟ怯楔潭잵䅠倸뙛쵯栰胍暖灮ꉩ漀뤺抵뤮䀥潤聀僇鍦녮ₓ遮≭逮袑最瑥灮扟ゟ㻓ꁐ昬콩搐ꊜ킽騃渑笠奈䕐䥌䭎묠뷿븏屜絮쁽ⵁ륰｀¢ㆪ耸死⿂㿃Ⓘ⾵藷똟㨏嶈�忋芉ㇲ놞牢릷놣遶쿿촟몜걿⩿風놁됏矟霽산ᆾ⽹홠骰数浬⽢㡀㥠怯ꄱ킉㨳㌰Ⴙ콍뾿쿐�ￓ࿕읔輐࿗Ῐ醕楄ⵣﻀ뜟����ݿ迠鿡ᄫ扵敪ݣ蠽䕒›牃鉡₠⽖
鉀㻐爐懾僰忭轺濫꽼濴勵ﲯ뉿︯ｯｿ輀忊⼄㼅伆龅꾆뾇裿觏ǟ鰏ฏ༟Ｏ㼐休弒漓侞徟�羡ꎯꪟꤟὟ‿⅏≟ｯ漖濺翻�鿽༨佷彸⫿⛯➯⢿⧏ࣟ㈿㏯༵뼈켉�༔ἕＯ㼗᥏㝯ᶏ⒟㘟ｯ罅轆齇꽈꼼㽭佮彯䍙妜륥릁懰邓鹩㽳仐묠⁐뤨샰畯桧眠ꅑ끛鏠溰ꂕꃥ빯渑挺Ɐ말闰珰꽩僚恒⁔�炑ꃃ哣뽐攰⸩Ｊ༬ᨭ릳咠攡卸骰楰悹剷剠쀠ₐ胚け퀬ｨ免낻쇆点큓怾偔枼婮䴀鍐憐킹畞邘⅛퀬ꀹ兣攀份朁텛퀯끀僚¾ꅝ勿뭰뺰媐封䵠哰隣삓搠
傘↚㿎뽋恟㲳銀哐仰瀐콕�鍁傐嗳騰勰르䎐멨㡀ꁄ쐮㔰酒畱뭩冰ｒ点쀯큂呙恔偒ቔ咰奐뭱枰ꀹኚ屚륿䶐镐릠䷐䶀嵱暮삓ꂖꅝ陰涠恔槿䉳髐榱㮑妰兒楐＄삕偙쉛卙ㅚ击㭁现㕟潤罥༭彠懿䭯⾿ハ㳟礏穿ﾏ齻꽼뽽辁꼂ἶ྆ᾇ裿褯䄿㣟㦿㫏藟莯༾Ἷ⽀轏佂ᾕ潄䫿餯骯鮿鳏郟䳟䷯ཏ羟罿辀⾄꾂뾦뽴痿ꧏꖟꙟꝯ꾏蔿？뾳쾴�꾕辌龍軿辯놿醯鋟鏯ꏿ陟？쿂㾘뾞ﾝ忇濈翉迊븟ꂏꆿꋏ쏟䅘祮勹玑煥僒쓤儠셰厐펱栲䅑㉑厽汐慜
䂻ꝙ兡빡셬夠�璀灒右吀瀃摲渀켰匰绐呷샐洀吒툒溆⠰珤氩擴楯灡凑츰핮吱䢀瑒ꨯ翟≒ꉱ凒�ꁙﹲ�矃砟촯损퍅퍢ﾴ쇕腔뙙샓냒ꃒ䇙郳冝斡僁ǔÏ灵聓呋印匠扔楆像쉦洱혃灲ꇘ聫啿찰匒忐勀殓珀��췟궟꺟ﾯ뾯꾽俱忲濳翴迵忹닿럯ﶿﻟǿ쌏멿｟澻羼翽쿻ꞿￃ㿑ῆ쳿ಟჯࣿ캿ﾖ켓꿯�漘缙輚鼛Ͽѯտ삏솟ᖯ쎏⏏＿㼌뼒１켧�Ｊ༬츯켿큏㌏ﾟ⿺Ἀ㿬俭켸輴鼵꼶㟿㺿ﱯ䂟ᱟ䏿䗿䘏？⽇㽈弞漟缠༇꽀⼉샿ℯ⊿
䧏⓯◯⳿⵿ﾏ齗꽘뽙콚�콕㼼鼰㇇喯徏咂浩콟伽忿㼯乯撟敿榏术梯转齂ཱὲ⽳㽴併哿䬿䰟䴯瀿湿像兯ｿ轒⽣꽔⾁콖佝轜뾅蛿蟏裟廯簿悿慟扯ｿ龌Ὢ⽫辑佭罼꼹뼺雿銿鍿钏閟鲯潟麿ｏ�ﾢྤᾥ⽷㽸佹竿筟鹯綟纏ꮟ釻괯뽿쾀ﾃ羊辦륿몏뮟벯붿냏趏抌떽戛ᾜ뾍쾎힏℠탔昭浡㩹僄狰獵ྵ�栰둲満䅳烟桐䐮�剰僼齁ꁟ썯첟숙춚鿄꿅뿆쿇�ྛ迃鷿켯훟��꿌澦㿣俤忥濦翧ꣿ꧟ꫯ곿닿댟됯＿迕徶忳羸ﾾ㾾憎ﰟ
ᓯﺟⁿ顃浯튰挠쭥`癥敩⁷畓瀸牥ဃ郲郰⁼䑰灥퉵͠琀ʕ䣐쀃퉴槰쩣塠敲ͳґ槀냊晏զ͠Ґ需頯ᄿ䪙䈠յ憠⁵濾༅ጆᄄ쀃∆િ˰ঐ˰珀＆ए؛ए䘌�慤∄탫ꃼ푥ਰｂꌄ༑ἒ侙뛴釽珰蟼�ᨯßმఉ〵뀝쪠र盐쩲ධ枠$ꀄꀅ繥⁴↟Ⴏ┯♏य़呈栠ㇲ㌲㤹Ἠ⼩㼧�ⷿ৯ᭈᰟᴯᠿ᷼�缟뼴伞弟伹倔ɬ퉵⚑㐣㬳舱⌸㊀㔴㌶耾㬟㺴⸑䄾㸮㑲ײַ爳㹡䋀㌯䆯�＿⽅Ἴ缺㽈⼰㼱伯⽌䷿㈿䑿䡯턏퉏轟䫏⼼佗彘轉쳵
⸱⌸連㜴㟐Ｘ潑罒뿽当潂뽢콟ὢ寿岟暯侯䵯楿檏硡㔺ᥟ榟搏斯콦㽕佖⽨뽴罙�㽧竿䃏㴉Ⳑ玜怏膟缟ｯ콣㾀辂⽼㽽ᾇ⽭㽮泿譏ᜏ澟烏迟薿虿뾏龇⽶㽷ﾈ㾕Ƚըڠ靦ﰀ璐㩰⼯睂킛昮桬逃३ǵₗ⽭•需⒀韰开渠毆沘耆汥鲒̐샊筴奈䕐勀䥌䭎鬠鱟屜絮鹽鿁쨐ﮐ⇽㠱閏袏꒿ꄄ鉭鎟膯ꪏ鐯ꡟ葏ﾏᾩ꾬꾤뾥㾱쾐�ᾯ냿똯陿霟頯렿㟿㠯＿꾶⽇㿀达龿꿀뿁迅럿읏걿쬟찟촯츿콏｟忪濫翬迭쿇꿯볰�헿훯퇟／迼鿽쿢�￥￠쏿멟뮟
쒿씯옿ｏ这ﾍྏ迯鿰ῷ뿲𢡊쥿︯ÿďȟＯ㼃翟俒忓翘濾뿼꿛㹒㡀Ἃ⼌΅ય�払Ꝥಀ眭ာㄺ瑰⁈敭耉浵鬻召�搐␠屐敮̘혖죬Ⳑᤥ⧅惝牵퀤瑮᫃㮋齤枑墨ᔳパꂟ輑鼒��ᶯ�⋏ﾯ伧弨漩缪缞㾲�拊ଯⵢ䘉鱲濐螜쏽稱椊䐠癡䐀捩敫⁹漰䀢⑩潐䐺⸒搶捀悜潹큦慣数퀹㙮꜐倢柰ྜྷᾞ⾟㖠㣿㥿㪏ꊕꍯ㹽㾏㪟뼴輄༰⢮둝딿䝏ℱ戁⽲☉᠁Ｐ샴彋�彎�剽叠턚弳漴�邧ᡤ祡唬ᖡ旐扭ꝛ嶀㧀
Y䀦ऱ㉀㫤刴僠䭍䷿丏⽏ᰠ�䬲䍔噠圏㴟ݐⅰ鿰妰吀챩潭逕뀶⹁Ὗ켮巿嬿屏桟帟彿悏喟碑扵㩪唀拯壯刈䔠›慃嘠ꟿᖀ愠㪰潰泀檿�罱�轸ཷὸ凿䙟耯腯艿莏֟گ켇�྅뼞潬侉徊澋賿赿躏辟₯ℯ∿蕏ﾯ漤缥Ｋ㼫羛辜龝꾞⳿积穯ꅿ糿銟？⾧ﾣྥᾦྠ⾯㾰뇿뉏號蜏蠟鄯덟鏏ｿ辔龕꾖뾗쾘�龟쇿슿쏏쓟엯⌟�鋈牄搮₆ᔭ끡㭨₱䁄⁵Ꝧㄛ野Ⴛ畱然㠠㬠텤敥ꢿꦯ₻祍聥湵ℕナÊ戜켠偄ӏ恙⅃椠逕懚퀜ꥩ㞀珰⁄䀘컯쵀姰᪀⃐―
偙傽橿ខ䏰홐햁ᠠ섰朰槾逻䀘틎チナ焜Yᖻᢐ區肿⇖怕걬龀ဘ퀜‸懏‸瀠″姿獐벰ᡠᙀ밀᪰쾠臖罫罊濈⏝ス肿逶훿᫁풠䐒촠ᗰ㨠쩐ﻀᙰᨀ탠텏꥟뵏퍁妀쨀攀暀ꀚ�뭱㴐㪀�朁胕齩‘䃔Ⴛ⛛苩据䀘㟿㳰폀ퟷ훹뵗ᕠ夠ffᏚ쇗쩶펰㭰攁ﾁ狙퀜凔ꏮ″@僇睑〘惍�篒䗕ꃊ넚끳튯糧㏎ⅳ쿤迵㿸俹쳿㫗졁ꯟ犯괿뢿꼂⼁㼂༆轿濆輊ಟද뒿떏뚟랯྿Ｏ�ￋ⼕㼖众弘᧿ᩯ뱿봟븯뼿쁏셟ｯῆἥ⼦㼧伨弩伃쫿⏿⬿ӿԟدᐿ㌯＿꿻�
켰�弸Ｓ༵뼻⦿䃟䄿䉏䍟ၯᄟＯ㼒伓�伝弞缛彋䲟Ὧⶲ犕珰牁牐敤㩠失�䧁疀淚ᕓ刻ⴕ㪓瀠逤휿�흠啐匣ㄈ̸뀮쁙ⰶ㈲⤳᾿�⻀圃㮫P擒˔㌺嫐＂伯꽎뽏⼠콚伢�⓿⩯⫯搯敯晿枏実徟罭赮�崿祢涰㫾㼾伿殺齲溏쵂哰浩烚桪ヨ쵁孰�嵨ꃚⵦ퓠ퟢ㪐╹Į闍摀獯洮♹刡憐⸮洀�僕灇홧ⷰ忠惘釷忷�搐ቜ䁽ǔ逭笀奈䕐䱒㡉䭎笠籯絿岇絮罽肱촀憰楰ﺡ㨱臌芟綯璔䒟疏㕱睡崠远鿝쾊ㇲ⅞牢⥷Ⅳ僗6軟趏礌毯惯卷뇡罰
瓯烷細禁ₖ풿훐嶐圐揰ㅠ䁉㇈〺⁞䵐⾏㾐釟鉏鍟鑯恿周肆羖霯ﴆ喱䐁臏祥魿鰿鵏鹟齯ꁿ悏䍨揮徢澣奯퍰⸰쀭㭹�횠�㽼龦꾧뾨쾩�䶕扵樞䇴ﾭ䕒났啡⃐츐ﰠ慲僴羵Ｙ辳Ἴ⾺볿붏솟뼿삿쓏熟覟｟Έ⿊㿋俌꽅뽆콇�췿宿뗟턟폿퐏픟혯＿俗忘佝彞潟忎轡齢槿栟機숏？⿃꿪俅忛伶強�鿫璘ﯿ／뿎쿏�࿚翼㿝俞�୯ｿ輌鼍꼎㿳伭弮輈䈑䝄꽯₠晡삙ﭲさ䁕ᄬ၏ůﾟ６༘꼛⼚㼛༟㿈Ἇ⏿⒏▟⚯
ﶿ︿ｏ_ｯ⼨輂鼃꼄뼅켆�ჿ㙿㜟㠯㤿㩏ᱟＯ缒輓ἲ＼＜༞꼡⼠䓿䜟䈟䏟䓯䛿／뽌鼢漧㽑佒当潔⼳⫿⬏Ⱏ唯⻟⽏たㅯｿ輲鼳꼴뼵㼼콣�晿棿䤏㻟㼿䁏恟䋕削゚帳楠繳栀받砐泐聹遘档멡汥柱炥끟恬饩绀뀠泐믠ᛱ瀱崐琱瀟䥠瀀挲骠珡牵目ꂥٳ躻䜮䠯䤿靊₢䅰덱牷斑彶ﲰ慵삙獲ㆳ灣偱ꁾ뱵昐ၭ挠汰데朰火灡丣큹蝩煠劁旾偱灬ƚ큹ㅳ剽낆旦炙酲⁉ꀖ⾴跿檯羯孳데蘰瀠沠ຠ絴蘒꽰狐빏뭳ᚠ벐舐驱㍱뽵盿矏毜䬟耟䷏嬿蜯ﾯ뾈後�뾏潐꽨㾔闿陏靟
噯埏壟姯飿⽝㽞佟彠潡罢轣櫿꘏ꧯ谏泟／Ὥ쾢꾭꾍뾎徒�藿虯띿돏뒏떟뚯붿ｯ侓ᾘￂ࿄�뾚鯿鳏웟麏ꃿꄏꈟꌯ＿侤徥澦翔迕鿖꿗�몿꺏꿯뇿턏瀆瘀抓J蟀ચཐય