HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (6)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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:aebrech@aol.com> >
To: Timothy.Parsons <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com
<mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com> >; D.Dickey
<D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
>; B.Hoog <B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net <mailto:agarganese@orlandolaw.net> >; kkopp
<kkopp@orlandolaw.net <mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net> >; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com <mailto:Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>
>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com <mailto:gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com> >;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com <mailto:bbaugher@cfl.rr.com> >; rko153
<rko153@gmail.com <mailto:rko153@gmail.com> >; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com <mailto:Ari@cumberlandfarms.com> >; ricksbigart
tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com <mailto: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
<mailto:info@a1aresearch.com> >
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com
<mailto:ricksbigart@gmail.com> >; Alan Brech <AEBrech@aol.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
摡宖ꍢ遫午勺說妰䓐臒тﴒ꒿硥쏰쀡腃欗嗐＂䁼忆姵惹쾉ᾨ쳿컿ꠏꧏ꫟귿긏？⾯㾰侱徲澳羴ﾺ㾺���햟ꊿꌿ콏ﾯ翦迧鿨⿐㿑俒忓濔헿홿힏���뽟Ὼ⿻䫣荹Ａ炃쿯翪ༀἁ㿬俭ி�忽鿼缐輑鼒꼓켈ʯᦿᮟίпｏ弅漆缇輈鼉꼊뼋缞ໟᗯᵯ⬟Ⰿⴟⸯ﴿外셁苰崐唡⊐᷏ｿ伳弴⼞㼟传弡漢缣⓿▏⢟⟏㾿⤯ミ⽟�뽃콄�晪빃殐奭嶰巰瘡ꆼお₃쏟曐苰쥦䬁浠큧臿㯱㕏仿伏㘟㞯㢿ￏ�［༽Ἶ
佁㽀䋿䡟䣟帟彿悏憟嚯ￏ鼗꼘뽐轧齨꽩㽑佒叿呟啯噿垏墟妯沿ｿ�潣Ὣཹὺ⽻㽼擿敟景歿艏茟萯蔿ｏ�ｮά⽲㽳䍴옇뿀벀㷐挢汯즉㩀셢揰㭫Ã쎩ⷐ뵦榠ヂ䬺빩Ⲡヅ읬즀뵠⎐蒐敺診烐ﹴ琢疟皯瞿经絏鞏뿟ﾙྛ㟾Å熞䱏똠쉧䰐䵑ゕ鹥ಊ琱戱鍲陉쟁彠쁿⾌ſ쎍쑆洐㪊悼쉡佀扳䃉쟛罠⚿႕ᦁꈼ聿愼肾냃车䪰醐贐L숺쌐䀀ㅡ⁋밫엠牠䀲輮淐圢ゾ⁋ꂟ轴徰㆐깮鍫쬼醀擀굦͠Ⴢ胅䡻偙剅䱠义⁋龩ꮪ湜絽ᆭ悭႕鷱ㅁ畜恌⣾澯↫访蚏ꜿ璿
縁诀愐䂓ꗵ枏ꪦ딾ꃯꆏ릟᷿릣꽔ꑀ쮰殐倠槼읰랑ꛟ벟ꣿ꾿ᴓ⅌ꕫ鸐䯠琠杀껿꯲갟괯긿쑏씯뀵ￏ�鿉쾳�鿁ﾶྸᾹ탽㮒뤱⿂꿀忐쿂ү䇼㉅꼓辠엠왏읟ｯ翈࿚ￊ캱ᷟ鿏濏뿗텿튏펟몯뭯뱿붏綟厌遥꒰咠敵쁊俀瑣ㄠ䨴韀⌀냮ꃮ㨲琵瀰Ὥ翩迪鿫꿬냭扵ꍪ〲睆垁ꂤ䎤ꕡ†뽖摰悥哴遲瑐쿯�軿蘭隷Ｏ케ﾇྉ⾎罴´澍軛ݽ牀낏႕鍲଼턉숌䄲뉱鐊ޯ雏翏依１༓ἔ⼕鈈䩉造沐敷䁋⁵⁰楷해䵠뼮䬰猠Mმ惵낪ꖅ楠䃗慄楶䁋䓚ƿ䭥辰暐郮탛禦䀙
灋ᥴᚐ뽈ꕰ祠灋朠㵯這뽎ꔀ轠ᳰ敁ｸ䀲탛ꂟ追鯾켕뼁缡⋿⎏ຟП֏ڟྯｯ⼪輐༗伖뼮켯�࠵澃䃗깥᧲椔幭遰⬀郀澐ﹴ�䨐᪐迄᪐꿐挜༥�伹强輥鼦꼧諿謟ॏ⡟⳯䈟ﭏ罐燦곻腃쿼�ལ샛炟낏煟潵瓼鍥㴿⬏ⷿ㌏㮏ﾯ뽑콒��玞郴矮킯냵齭塤繁�鿻꿼喤Ῐ䭢ﺰꖰ遀䷰思䶐᧸媴呐ꑨ䇠鿥戯⽁荝淩︴䐸胀퓰௱౿햆嵑弿ￕ࿗轟ⶩ啤挮䃅擀獯洮�遰ﴀ��濿烯ῡὶ佦［齭俦㽯罱棐暲舯ｯ齛꽜뽝告
쀚Mᇯ㞣蘡㩐ㄲ샔蕍ﾏ龆꾇뾈৴ῶﾌྎ轿븟ꒆ毟泏韟썯欿濺肃쐳狯獿璏鮟ﾟ迊�ꗌⶡ侄潽꾙轿胿膟銯錯鐿镏著걿ﾟ꾭뾮쾯�ﾲ꿾ᾦ륿먿㱏㵿㺏⢟ஏ瘔뛥欱偌異뀷섿鵄誰쉀ḁ䱱䕐㡎唭楓ẍ䁱㎐Ｓ뽪콉࿀ཅ俅忆⽋㉌䷚睎ꂐ沠⽍⾽俿偏噟믟퇏틏폟퓯삟㝹䲰ꅐ矠Ɓ¡执㌨ⰱⰳ䃯⤵㿍ᓘ쀜ᣫ隁Ⲣྚ�ꎫꝫﺿ�Ꞻ��ｏᾃﾻ鿪꿫뿬쿭辽뻿뾟䂯쥯쫏쯟쳯翯῏⿐꿖⿽㿾俿ÿ흟���鿯￤輈悘扮끨飡岩愧രय़ਟＯ㼋伌２
뿨�鿮輘鼙ᕟｿ迶鿷꿸漝쿺�异鼁⯿Ⱏ⸿͏я՟ٯ⼩は椠8遤傗时ꊠ〷橸슐韱摐閐冋魉愠遙楷遤⁺킉煶슐鿑㣀旐旼摫࿏럟롏ㅚｏ㼑伒漿演漢ཀὁ뽄䏿䐿ᙏ䢏ᳯ䱯䶟亯콏＝༟ἠ⼡潉伣熢⣿⥏⩟は寯尟崯帿ｏ彟�蕨⼵ར�ὐ뽦柿棏槟凯劯县Ⓩ●�Ｇ轱罚｠㽠ὶ⽷磿礿穏摟㉿㍯㑿粏ὅ⽆佈佖强漻ᾇ苿菟蓯蛿谏䪿躿殟Ｏ侒従澔羕辖转齭꽮嗿踯埯漿烯狿猏？⽴꽺뽻ﾦྨᾩ⾪ꐿ紟线翏胟ꋯ䊵･뀹鿝龋꾌뾍ﾜ辊ᾴ뗿똯뜿轏郟雯
뿿삟ﾯ뿁쿂�辢澙羚辛龜뷿鹏龿ꃏ뇟ꊏ쿿ꖿ？龫�俔忕濖翗还俋꺏꾯낿틏吭浩澸맿�뭯쪟뾽쾾�忭濮翯述킟읯졏쥟쩯찏ﾟ꿍뿎濟�翽ￒ翙뿘˿̏Пԯؿ累��ﾟ꿞�俦忧�翩뿸裿ฏ࿏ჟᇯ輚㼞伟张漡缢濴履謹꼩뼪濻翼켬鿾�뼀߿ؿ㙿㝯㡿㦏࢟ؗㅢ抛輘Ἂ⼋㠌㬀潦瑮昭a業祬债灡禐畲ㅳ暌䀵䄉釠瑯票䐠犠ㄑ渀ⱳぇ䜮劰䅐켛�伩᧿㾚䨚䆟䈟䌯䐿䕏｟罍⼗㼘彋弚佖齔꽕囿垿寏䦟崯恿感戯＿佣彤Ｄ༦
ἧ⼨콝⼿くㅟ杯㌟㒏㮟？뽥콴�ｷཹἽｍ心珌䌹浯獰俰А散え癥敩쁷匠灵牥悀큯涁糐䐠灥併ꭐꂀ䁲聴䠠ႁ佴瓠捩ぇ뉲胐苡椐凡‐晏艦肰臠⽐鼓꼔먕낲艵懰ﱵ漠瀕徂掃憁ႁ荿蝲炩耰漱蟐聀猐蒿蕏號葫谿號䙜텏榸慤犁ၩ入＠銇徎澏뼕텺덭秿寇幏毯顟紟犟軽퍏ﾓ岆〵ၙ詓䟰낲兲訐柰炡旼鹴鼏负ꉿꎿ蛏灔漰桠煯傢끇䚑㏠㌲㤹辥龦꾤ꭏ號题饯驿随夽＿佚㾲꾛뾜ཙꂑ䂃氄併⚁㐣㬳ㆤꀸ㋰뀴㏠Ⴜ烗륟뭄⺡톻밮넂ﮟ콛퉜뱡끐넏뼟小｟뿂�
ﾸ羭辮龬뿉쫿꿏쇏엟왿侏ଏ쟿㿯芺⿇ﵲ⸱㡆¡샛㜴琮㜐㣾῏⿐꽥࿑鿝���챿췯쳿庐硡눺雟ﾟ꿣뿤ￓ࿕뿲뷏뭬ꩠ�ｿ｟鿠꿡濾뼀㿺俻伅य뉟Ͽ羟꼄뼅⿶漓䞺൨ᕦ禐瓐㩰萯眯怚昮桬椒䅲뀕⽭鸢爠ᙀꈐᕠ徐潢챠歮㵒炀摬퉬ꀚ欃䜠璐䡻偙쁅䱒义⁋祥峠湜絽텅ꀝ恇狻稰ㅡྶ༔ἇ啱꼟淾༑ἒ쿿켨�뼁켂⟿⮯⌿␟⼯࿏ဏⴟﾟ꼮༵弔漕编⼲徴澵㳿쒏㝿㶏㸯䄿䃟䅟ｯ켵�漪뽉콊�ｍ燿桯楏機佯汯뎏县ﾯ
뽔콕��ｰིέ瓿稯憯抟掯撿族忟ￏ潇伹强漻罩�ｄ䛿瀏യ猿澯灯煿ﾏ齲콩罈轎콽�ﾀ苿伏僯勿圏堯笿婿｟ݟ킻╽㾊例⽭覯路察殫扥l♤ఠ眭肩悡ㄺ瑰⁈敭ꂈ浵ᖕ鬻ᖔ捫尺懰搐ꄠ峀敮⎗�氲Ⳡ頥⧥恜牵䂢瑮欫駓㮫Ṥ朡墨鐳ヱ〞ʜὭ꾐뾑寿岟鲯廏ꇏ惟柯景뾯澦羧辨龩龝摷ꅢ걢䘩᭲窬굃㧪覉倠邆Ⴁ䀞吐浩鑯禰䄠⻊ꀱ戡ꅲꖩ缡傗큳㾬簳�瞢ὓ쾯�〦慤셹捏潴♢�ຠ눰ꗠ橠⃀㨳卑눳䵠뾳쾴�ﾷ륳ꈏ周멯볿⟧䐈癡Ɨ楄正
旸❹ｩ弱࿂῀⿁찟쎯쑏앟멯疂橢攞ゾ쿆�䕒젺䌠鑡‐♖鐠鹿慲ゾ濑콷翏훿�粿紏？⾃ῦ㿨꾢쾅�蟿鶯탏？⿲㿳俴㾟侠御俪羣꓿ꮏꨏOğȯ̿ꭏ鼆俷ུή켋߿টયҿᎯᓏᗟ６꿪뿫쿬漘Ὸ⿹ﱏﵟｿҏ☿｟漧缨輩鼪ｪཬ伢ⴑ䜤潯႗晡傔䂗༬ဿⱏዯｯ鼝༳ἴ뼷㼶伷ΰ㾟䂟䆯䊿⏏ᬿｏ弜㽄缞輟鼠꼡뼢켣⓿◟⳯副匯吿問噟ｯ缽漮缯輰ｘＹ༻㳿怟෯揿帯忯懿／ὢ余輾彃佭彮潯罰俿䔟䟿䠏䤟欯䬯
䱏｟潍�轏彼꽑⽘潗臿菿萏砟娟嬯尿繏秹끻映삙낔熾邛补槀慧䂗肌珄餠燠極႗髯赑貢軁戁悳䆌놈趟霐鱠輡琲旐筡︀豯趰迲餆賀뎰饠襰瑠悾慣陵靳遠眇ほ瀠짵澠낒덬酠躄븁邽冉솽抏뵮韐跰란銓클敯逰灰탗淄魩懰灰끿邒跿퀢礟薂蚇킯睷鎰쳀捯삌肍瀨₌肑蠧鞐镰䌁덨㊐븶㈷镐뿠訠锁匧膏痢ꂏ⥳挮摟敯ﱺ䤠{邈健쁩炗炈邽歠傉邒と褨㘰멵뷐揱悗瑥推⤮隍멭珁徟ꁻꅯ䉼ほʎ邌ｦ쉻⎍䂳ႍ炓傏ꂪ낌닿韠鉡ꗀ趠ꪀ输먲㋘玓皔ྦᾧ粡
哲ꊪ慳炕傢ካ⁾뀲莫郗₤ﹹ鬯퓡遂ꤴ飱饏驟ｯ疛㊏႒⊩ꖳ傒遻ꯇ赢롱玱扩蒪雟뢆덅ꗘ놑満袭肌斟뤰닔襂갰枡鑵炓悗酨踹送轃釕⾮㾯潥ﾵསὧ⽨槿眿옿쟏죟짯쯿蜏Ｏ潬㽱忓濔翕迖ｼ�瓿痯矿턏礿紨誏翟ﾯ⾆俢忣濤翥迦俞➈諿앟휯＿࿚Ί⽺㽻彽�ﶏｿƟﾯ쿫쾇�㼄濌翍㼉쿿�솟슯੯ଯిｏ弍༔࿒翲鼙꼚뼛᷏�ᙿ�ﾟ齹㿷俸忹濺翻！༃ⷿ⸿⽏たㅯ⭿կ؏휟⼇㼈Ԫ豂ⳁ２㓿ᗯ␟㩟㭯㽿㴟㺟ﾯ㼗优
弞ｆὉ⽊㽋⧿⃯⇏⋟⏯䓿⚯✟Ｏ㼨弪ὗ缬Ｒ㼲꽛峿嶿廏忟勯㚯㜏㠟豙楔㽭䂿拏䊿⽒Ὠ⽩콬佫彬ཅ䳿琯疯皿矏磟埯亿ﾟ꽏뽐콑彲ｔབ뽦壿萯嫏恏惏褏詟譯ｿ辌龍往�･⾐齭滿閯瀯胏༏ဿ驏陟？⾗㾘侙ﾟ㽳�彺辥ꞟꢯꦿ篏粿総统⾢ཱྀᾂ⎃㾔ﾰྲ뾂菿듏蔟맯蠯踏趏뷏뾿쾾�羏뾴嚞롢ừ齢釟鉯鍿㮈潦渀慦業l㩹慐祰畲猲�㕦姇瑯栨⁹롲湐䉳츬梀䐮켮刀僼ꍁꐟ뀯ꂟ웪텪濈翉迊鿋꿌쿔羞辟틿ꆯ���翐쿤濧翨迩鿪꿫㾫곿굏
깟꽯딟뚏랟ﾯ뾸濮�濂ῼ⿽ﹿ＿O쑟핯靖䎉澘灭䃻惖散胏攀楶睥匠㡵数ݲ簠瀠敄異ꃖ郹镴瀇ࡈ瑠プ捩胎爮›ㄈ怉�ﱏ晦
〈ꀈﾛઝ㪅甀䀊畡漠삜યࢳࡰໂ脇逎怇୳ಟදុ輋꼓갍흆椡慤ࣷŠ攰烘䌉꼕鶿羅Ɇă缿꿲漟䷺鼕伛갍먵占䀒僎:�鵠䀒⡧ীੀ敀╴�漦켔༪ἫẰ⧁쾠᠀㎖㌲㧼ⰹ⯯ㇿ㊟ද￨뼟켠�贝迠鿡輹Ｂ⒟ᠱ૰沐홵胑⌦㌴ㄻ⠸㐲〸䌳䂯䊔竱䌮⸡剃ΰ⋤｡ꁃ強漸彆꿣ཊ⼾㼿䃿㑏㗏㏟凯刏㜟䤟Ｏ콌�忖侓㽏佐퉁潜巇乿奔ㅍ㠮倨ၣ㓈⸷惻㠷潖罗壿䝟䠿摏柯怿憟㾯콫㽔何当콯긗硡㫾⼺㼞潮ｪཬ㽚寿屏穟帏繿稿肿
䐟ﾼ끂就潸콥꾆ｨ뾅裿脏芏貟犟獟煯避ﾟ꾑Ἲྲྀ侕ﾋྍ彻粯絯驿䆿梗䀊鱦臠 灴⼺眯낡⹐汦ࡨ椰釹쉥鴮洀∯鸞鶐鍠뀩扟냶歮跙ݹ泀ꄢ칰瓠笀奈䕐䱒ᡉ䭎ꄠꈿ届湜絼쵽ꐡ컰聆ƀㆱ㷟魟蹟ꚥ淿徘澙蟿뀟넟褯訏긟닿ꪏｯ羫ᾷ徖澗ﾵ徼꾛鳿鶿맏㭿㲯쎿䯟뻏翄迅⿉꿇뿈᾽⾾뾱퇿툏팟퐯픿ﾯ뿱뿖�༻ￚ῝累著ﭯſ￩Ῥῧ뿎鿀꿁싿쫏쬯찿쵏錟ｿ辔뿶쿷�쿏헿ן؟ܯॏ흟�ｏ忙翞迟켂꿡埦⁃ㇲӿᅵᅿᔿ
闻뗲摐炭眭퀰⠁㪰瀱⁴敭ཀྵ痰ᱭ㭥攛돲錺䃤惨ဩ敮猞ᶫ㈨ヴ⤵냣畤⥲源‣㯻᥅摐熥㩧ᰳぁꗿ⎀ᝯ᧿⓿？ῦ⼩㿨뿮￭뼭켮�た⓯룯﹏戞謵異礳牆낢ﱴ錁嘆�‐慄Ṷ䑑捩毠祥嬠욠뀨楂쀪㩯⹄ɀꉣ祀景慣며䁥湐逼炭쀨﹐ꉧꏯꗿ꘏㸕䃿䄏５侨嶩ཅፁ㼻＊輶뒽崨徺澻戏✱ﱱ牢褵焬ꀞ�屐οџ䵯㟟㡏奟卡䄡㤧㫟瓯吷Ⅸ猐䁤祡捏큉㭢炭倣弹Ⲱ‐萺⃀䵐罒轓齔嗯⚯媌㡯哋齜꽝琽偆怨邥끟楔淌ᱯ㴀䄰㐮㔯＿뽣콡�꽮､སὧ
ቜ畸橢聀罜罩衪⁒㩅䌠᭡ｖ炭逛 潳罱ǿ砿稟筿羏累纯嚿ￏ�齌྇ᾈ⾉㾊ＩἍ༯謿▯爟迿郯鋿／ᾓ⾔㾕侖輦鼧꼨侌⫿⯏㋟ㅟꊟꌟꐯꔿｏ伳ｿཱྀ龨⾃侙忻濼귿ꧏꪏꮟ겯ꚿ떯뛏ﾸ꾌뾍쾎ﾗ澺ᾚ鯿鰯鴿鹏齟ꁯꅿꚏ＿忈濉翊迋鿌ἴ俲忳쓣콏䐤ᙫ䆰쇂䥶耾셀퀠毀惡無痔큥槰逞㸠쎠빐ᱴ䆀祰햠私瑪㉺ 䈨⁒㤱︳‶⏠祱䙰禀䁡꺶흟澯窰耹䡩琰끟⃑Თ큒䛠沀コ畯䀣ힽ楒烃⃖臕怞핳筀ꀾ䁥��ᮀ皠훻훐獡忚㾲�徴辿뇿薟蘏뤟ﾏ￮俅⾼
㾽侾쇏쉿쎏펟씏ﲿ�忎缀輁鼂꼃뼄뿸탿텟퉯ݿｯ鼎ￛ缑㼍伎式漐ᮯᲟᶯế﷏ｯ俴念濶翷缙鿹꿺뿻ﴯ⫟ﾯۿտ⾿〿罏弱漲漦缈載鼊䨭⅏7畁畧‷㠠悟彴ힰ䩓횡掑⥥懗탖怬핣��䏁牦浯䏗罂ꃖ恹郞恜ၬ㭈ჟ⃗䩲㹡淠孭ᇟ擖㹧䒡最ベ뽴냔ļᅀ停聟取㝦鿀쀽偟쏕〣ွ敡ꄷ柦댿䅋祬恀냔큊ퟯ屃��烰။〴泓혐睱䩨栰ὲｐ㗿䝏♓㸐�㟄㬐�ﷲ냝㽯훀�彼�瑀ꀺ獂受ᝀ푽㋑煋琽酄勗ꉅ�რ郟惕뀷䅰�￠아ꃕ
逩偒〴䉂䓇秅彾憰橤䁺㉓ퟹ䄡氱䜽䢏ᒟ／⼘⼦轚齛㽟뽝콞捏术栟椯樿⅏켢�༧Ἠ⼩㼪毿⳿ⵟ㍯㏯礯窯箿ￏ��Ｖ༸뽷彟潠懿承炏薏䴏ጏ薿號ｯ辈龉､ས佾쾔�雿韯泿浯湿澏馟煯콲�ｵཷὸ⽹�ꟿꡟꥯꩿꮏ肟膟芯侣⎮ɏी䃙뉋냔�䅁㵒핥훀ퟐ푃㏑ꟽ 큂惕〿郟햟힡혐䐱䗯柲䅯◗㉔儻睯ꄾ냔倿柼멨㽠地푒鷑諀㽿辋验O酄둑惝樠㫹榡둦䈢䑏䱅및糜멈嘢�址墟宯ྮ㱓쀐䤣ピ䁅畤⏉灖ٕ䂏佻剒ブ偃灊悢ブ
即匣꒶ཕᑖ�厐聏祤嘩䙰｣剋혼⇅䎴瞵閶�ꉀ츰듰慡탘⸰㚴픱掀祅灖㵢썰탄ぅ唠匮郉ᇓ�㺁��쯠㲀牁뿁싟�䉽囔ꁰ析灊ꂫ⢔㵐櫠ᇉ䰠ꉋ샡䴲灡�앢왯띿过층릱氠郒�䑳쳅珕멨児�違?၂퍲쿱퉕㰶ﾓ瀾냒휽ꀿᕗ냎ꓔ⧾忖濗ⱎ냉쀽䍖폿뗓첑쑀㿱䯑锒郒䨨㦔쾻愦偏☩奎鍊〴ꇠ삯럵磓탉䅥맠룓픁缰아菤罖偆･ￛ῞脾僒콋鿧軏郯鹿ﱿﴯ＿俾忿漀龒꾓羘뼈켉૿ꓯ鬿鰟鴯ٟﾟ澠羡辢ﾱ꾤켗쾦侭᯿ᱏᵟṯᎏ꾏끏｟澱ἢ
༂ἃ⼄㼅漩쿹ⳟ⡏⤏⨟⬯ㄿ߯ﾯ缌漶缷輸鼹㼘Ἇ⼐ᇿሿ㑏ᑏᕯᙿ▏ﾯ罅켚伡輠ཊὋ⽌㽍䇟⌿╟䡯䴚䃳컿퀐뒱뤁뽁딃랑쁀瞧䃅郥놿쁧켔熰痾䆸矲�뿍胓ダ돥듯틂劐炀苌㿹輭쏽叜냡倱フ쁑䃳냱쳿㹀케풁䐠쨰쩐堂믈Ṛ提恠盡灒䟠借젟�ꅂ䃬闲螸傺홮崿羟廘뎾何偄쁒⁜䃳띢恄쉘㕨샡礲샋삁挠倱芴煰쁂懀ムᇔ聒橷欿ｏ鼮콤�㼯估弱漲潀矿磯竿笏簟倯㕟㪟ｯ羄辅龆꾇⽆༽Ἶ⼿䃿舿䉟䍟䑯卿䛯鎟ﾏ뽈㽏罎ᾘ⾙㾚供侏凿刿协♟綏
经ꋟ胟ﾎཱིὴྨ쾣�ﾦ귿莯꽯늏댯됿땏襟ￏ�ﾌྎྰ⾐㾑侒ꇿ钿镯陿鶏鰏앏웏ﾼྟᾠ⾡�샀矶탤兛塀垀憂넠悪㔸彷烃杳냱헿噰坟捫焀奡鏤㩘⽛㕜ꬿꤿꩯｿ辫龬応뾮뾼ￜ꿡뀿뇟뛯ﾯ뿬侸徹澺羻忦龽꾾뿿삿쇏싟쏯쫿쥿ﲿ？⿽㿾俿濋翌迍鿎⿺˿૿��켇�式＊༌濧翨뼀ᠿ᥏／�⿴㿵俶忷濸翹迺ﯿʟ⤟⫏⯟⳯̏／ἄ⼅㼆씦ꕟ牰烓灗悿턃宦�퉡⥤歠䇓嫻⁀玐䅨慮揽瀠ꀲⅯ뀤ꀥ恜흽琐轵齶鼰
蔐僗ݶꀥ냑쀲⌦㌴耻㌱ㄲ㘸㌸忠逿⼴瀳逿㼩ⶱ㾳揢攠屸妐ㅐዻ憂齲༎幬䀲歾捰㋑鍱恮ꅕ뽣b䋕轅齆챞㙄ｑＺ༼콃輐鼑㽄뼓ὓ凿副卿咏墟ᕯ嫟｝ཟὠ㼜伝弞漟缠嫿⋏⎟⒯䂿戯⟟⣯缯罡轰齱꽲뽳뽧缱㋿㎏ڟ囏圿筏奏杯ｯ⽋㽌羀㽼佽彾潿ᾆ寿蟟懿访貯趿拏挿ｏ彤潥罦羈齨꽩겔ύ陯鞟檯磐报䁹Ù該䨭摠ეㄺ퍰펐烙ꂔ浵㖞鴻砵�欺潰튐펠溰瀶加龯礖㼘禠㇀灪㼬ﳰ⤳ꃗ郙፹쮢㬊ₛ鑤溠㩧ﴳᆞ픰ꖁ稱饟髏櫟？⽫佭ﾪ潯⽵辯끟놟늯ꚿ蒿护
쮪⽢侵鹷쾪厸홆涰Ｚ侉徊辕᪇ષ�ྐྵᾺ䠽倳邒オ䀷쀹楔涬푯턐䆀끂땛뗿僗흨暠肪걩ᒐ㩯痄쌮䃥潤䪛퇠晰ㅹ낝ၹ涌㠢鋰析瑥徜ꥢ䣀ꪰ暼�ḰꝤ젲꒐碡箠奈倀剅䥌䭎ܠ뿆쿇屜絮ｽNj퀷Ä邬솴춿죿뿤迟삯䒿巨㽎侗홏鐟ㄒ䆩牢秂껿ꁁ腰��앜뜿㔏뼈ᆣ겻徿�冻퇈㥹揀烡¥浥㥢䊠㧀㤇껀碀 㨳㌰쏽䷐翚进鿜꿝뿞쿟ꭽ咈탑쿡�祍↠捩‸셹숟㿿濳㿫俬戵扵樸捥꿡꿮䕒㪐䌠鵡‰㥖悝灈慲⿸྅㿶蟿ﰯ?͏˯ͯ뭿쾼⼉㼊伋ￔ．༐ἑዿ
鄯鈟錯鐿ꡏ｜꼗뼘켙�＜༞辨ꪟᒯ갏귏듟⦯Ｋ༭鼆％弰Ἀ⇿脏艿㖏㉏㍟㑯ｿ�輽鼾꼿뽀演缕輖㒿⇿⋟⏯◿☏✟Ｏ㼨뼮Ｍὐ⽑㽒体꼯砿祯乿㠯妑쑥냄鹡椠䩳姀옠॰⠠냄畯桧₼ꁷ岀뮡麀湀゠潠퇈据肠㝯냄肠楳ქ恝 炠瘺凥칰彠쥐旰㸩㔮㛯㣿쐊彠攡筸끞¥쑩崠嵠쬠⁐局㜰检肞兘烆臑쓏帰䧐彐材敮偘쑡疐₣Ⅶ쀷䓕掐\奥朁텦쀺䯿점检嶡왰쥰﹐齠ť恧傞搠꓿�囿殯䞳鵰彠痰ၙ嵰瓱콠�⽁だ肥쑴䍐䕨Å
伸⺐㔰酝ﱱ極烆剜ツ뀺쁍呤忿嵠彐彰摐왱ﹰ䑧꒐斢쑜塐ꁐ쐰聘煘是傞ァꅨ烺ァ彭瑠䵳ꗀ瑁ﾑꁆ剤停Ѵ傠偤쉦撿敓朱棯峵䙁玠㕪濿灯㝿毿江㡯㦟㪯켻ｆ羄辅龆꾇뾈䂏釿鈏錟鐯䰿䎿ﾟ꽄뽅콆ｉཋ罚䷿ꀯ伟問嗏ꐏꖯꚿￏ��콗�⿳徊澋꿿赯鮏羏肟뒯낟녟ｯ羲辳㾺ﾏᾼ뾾쾿�쇿雯靟顯饿骏벟鲟쾝�侮ﾠྡྷᾣ龩�틿퍟푯핿즏ꮏ겟궯醿泐湁嵹玑籥ꃏ停챰廀��屨牁峣帲汐慧烆撱憧慜챬ﻀ﹐㯰卤䃥嵴幰开瀃oべ烚큞彷쯐砰䜒
웝べ猨眩擴濮慴텻ぜ影ﱀ剈⽿ﾵ≝ꉼ�粑擝犠舃茟Ｏ还䕮ꋞǡ腟뙤ß��ﺁ屠斡背䇟�畀幰往幰匠扟䛤�ₐ쵦硡ﺲ廡直悀휰幒쁪鍝쁶띯／΅꾷뾸쾹��迼鿽ﾯ¿�뻏숏য়ਟＯ㼋伌鿎翅迆鿇꿈＆쫿쿈�텿흏ᣏᤏ᨟Ｏ㼛伜༔쟙⼍⏿Ⓩ◟⛯྿쯟ￏ�ￎ鼮輗༞伝⼳㓿㔿㙏㝟Ⅿ���ﾏＹ⼂㼃＾弅弓濷翸䓿㼯䃯䋿䌏䤟ߏ䯏ﾯ㼨彏潐网轒齓鼩꼪⯿䬿ᓿ쭟ⰿ⼏？⼰㼱뼷켸｢ཤὥ⽦板愿㨯㯏㳟㷯忿哅槼䝭䢯檿䪯嫟瀟
／ά뽴㽳佴ｌཎὔ齼緿纯羿胏忟嚯垏墟ﾯ뽙佺�｝꽮ὠ뾌拿栿枿釿鉏鍟鑯长ﾏ侈콫�ᾘ轵齶ᾝ磿螿䓿䛿ꈏ鹏鼏ꀟＯ㾡⽻쾩侂羭辮龯냿놯莿蒯薿蛏꫟蠟ྊᎋ⾜ﾹ꾊뾋ྼ跿쇟輟雿长얿욯잿꿏�澗꾼䚦쁢招쾧餷驟魯㭸惴რ昭憄礠债젰畲쁳曌켵潉ⷑ烦팠狠䃀獮傰⹄냪ﱒ䅐ྫᾬ辸�嫎�탿텟퉯퍿풏�ꚿꝯｿ鿚龩迥�￥��뎟Ｏ㾴侵徶澷羽达龿샿쉟쏏쫟ӿԏ缟⼆㼇伈忌㿝鼠蘀顃浯Ͱ�捐흥p癥敩⁷畓瀸牥ꀏჿჽ⁼䑰
灥�ྐǠ璀ྕ䡠倐�椠홣塰敲ၳᄡ楐샖晏ᅦჰဠꊐꏟᇯ瘝䈠ት愰⁵濾낤鼑ꌒꄐ惾倐눒ᚿ￩ｱᘐྀ獐輓ᑟᖟᎫᖟ䚜ᇟ�慤눐僸 ᙠￒ㌑鼝꼞ﾤ㘁ᄊ܉隷➟˟ᴽ⎏鰕〵僨ᩓ혰ᙀ癠홲ᫀ朰뀰】〒繥⹏ᱟㆿ㏿ᔏ哘ｻﹰ梠뇾週蘠㌲㤹켴�輹㫿ᖟ⟘⢯⦿●羏罁Ｋ俨⇺耒ɬ�⛁㐣㬳툱〸㈰䀴㌠偋鿿䣫䪄⻡ᅋ䬮䁂ﴏዬ䭡㾐䁏也冟⽇㽈뼼켽�ｘཚ㿿儏吟喿�魏圿堯Ἷ쉉彤潥潖㴂⸱⌸䀰k㜴̮㝐Ｘ彞潟你⽏㽐�⽯棿榏玟岿
崯嬿睏᾿硡䈺☟瘯煟狟ｳ⽢㽣佤ﾁ潦⾆꾂裿䰏䪬㦠职浟躿澟꾍ﾏ羉辊辔佺彻秿顯馏䊟紏鷿鈿鏟뿯ﾔ侃径澅꾢蝉ቨذꑦ琐㩰⼯睂ꂩ昮桬‐३脁⽭•ŏꖀㅐ꒠忐﹢溠毦緡뀏摬ዼ惺혁瓐䡻偙剅䱠义⁋⾩㪪湜絽ᇕꃖ瀁ॽㆡ佅侣徖销ｭ侠御ྏྸᾹﾐྒ뫿뉿덟뽯鸏齏뱟뷟俄龣꾤뾥濁齃꽄쿋叿욿쳏쵯텿켟킟얯／ῆ꾹࿚Ί㿝꼀烈�ﮯ䋏ῦ῾⿿㼀企异漃혏ﾯ迈鿉꿊뿸ῒ⿓㿔俕ÿ鬏鱯ɿﻯﾯ¿Ǐ뿗쿝།Ἆ
⼏㼐休�ｇ။⇺攌缙輚㗫濼⼙ᵗ报䃻땤ⵠ眆쀸ꀰㄺ瑰ꐠ敭浵唤⌻䵕ꏺ摐ㄠ渀斮挦㘥ﰲⰠ┨⦒ꃫ牵耱瑮ᏻ⠕㯫䀡굤条㌺⓽〱炭䈫忼＠�⳯ㄏ㗯羯뼶켷��㿀㼬ฆ笽㭢䙩ꩲ粠৬䎃줘䐠癡䄦聄捩敫⁹㹛뚨ꀰ㉩澰䐺म푄捀オ潹捦懨数䁈䑮떀だ練אַ杀�ﾬ֮䟿䧿뀅넿䱍仿䤏䌃缾ᢼ쉝썏噟ᜏ⼱扡㵲㑹♡ΐ０콙䱘伋弌콕㼿佀兡匾ㄩ콁�⡼炵慤禌搬␡攰扭悵樽㧠聧ꀴú灨㐺懹偠婍孯屿嶏⺟筼形뭀兔擐斏粟倶
ᔏバ교枀咀浩⁅⹁Ἴ⼽꽫뽩樿盏沟淯濿搏甂Ṣ䡪摰煯景劈㩅慃倣嘠悵耣烿䠰绠筐ݟ礏९耯／澂羃ᾇ龅꾆뽞콟轔軿郿鄏鈟ㄯᗯᘏᜟＯ龓༭�ﾙྛᾜ鷿鸯⸿⽿わ钟㈿㎿ￏ伺輹ྪᾫ⾬㾭㼻裿냿讏ꄟ̿я땟놿ｿ農龳꾴龮뾽쾾�铿閟隯龿싯ꉟꌏꐟＯ㾥侦徧澨義⾮俐忑틿퍯푿㲏﨏챏휿䠔牄献 瀭栰䫅‡끒⁵⥦�냉畱䘠�玐乑瑥뜼렟瑍甀滞脣냘숪删�뎴酑椠ꃜ⭡롩䘠獠遒ꀦꃜ棻⤀‰耣큧ᅹ倦冟⛐쾐某䩩ꀦ苝탏턪聧ꀦ
叮퇤쀣뭬☠⭰遆ᇞ遆瀠遁큧䂂쯿☀⒠쭠⥐�稱／࿗폫탇E燥)勂�⎠䢀�灰怤⥿�렏替䆗朰�퓴 悡TÄ\ᥥ