So I've got some tough medicine for you.?The truth is that everybody in this room?needs to radically rethink how you communicate,?especially how you write,?if you want anything to stick in this distracted digital world.?I don't care if you're a student, if you're an academic,?if you're a scientist, you're a CEO, a manager.

我今天要給大家來一劑猛藥。?事實(shí)上，在座的每個人?都該徹底重新思考一下自己的溝通方式，?特別是寫作方式，?要想讓自己的作品在這個 信息紛雜的時代留下痕跡的話。?不管你是學(xué)生、學(xué)者、?科研人員、CEO，還是經(jīng)理。

I'll tell you what the data told me that your friends won't tell you,?which is almost nobody listens to or reads most of what you write.?Most of the stuff that you agonize thinking about,?they pay no attention to.

我來告訴你一些數(shù)據(jù)告訴我的事情， 這些事你的朋友可不會告訴你，?那就是你寫的東西基本上沒人會留意。?大部分你苦苦思索的事情，?他們根本不會仔細(xì)留心。

And how do I know this??Well, I learned it the hard way.?I've dedicated my entire life to mass producing words.?I was a journalist by training.?Started at the "Oshkosh Northwestern."?Worked my way up to covering the presidency?for "The Washington Post" and the "Wall Street Journal."?And I started two media companies, all about mass producing words.?Politico and now Axios.?And at my current company,?the entire premise of the company?is to teach journalists and then CEOs, academics and others?how to use far fewer words.

那我又是怎么知道的呢？?這是我好不容易才明白的。?我一生致力于大量寫作。?我是科班出身的記者。?我從《奧什科什西北》起步， （今日美國旗下的報紙）?一路向上，到在《華盛頓郵報》?和《華爾街日報》報道總統(tǒng)選舉。?我還創(chuàng)辦了兩家大量輸出文字的媒體公司，?分別是叫 Politico 網(wǎng)站和 如今的 Axios 新聞網(wǎng)。?而我現(xiàn)在的公司，?整個大宗旨就是?去指導(dǎo)記者、CEO、學(xué)者等人?怎樣大大減少文字篇幅。

So why??Why, if I spent my entire life writing lots of words,?do I want people to use fewer of them??Because the data -- and you -- made me.?If you actually look at what you're doing --?One of the most interesting things about technology,?one of the creepiest things about technology is?businesses know so much about you.?What you do, where you go, what you buy.?And in the case of a media company, how you consume information.?And the data about how you consume information is eye-popping.?And to be honest, for me, really humbling.?And led to this journey about,?wow, if I'm looking at this data?and the data basically says: you read almost nothing.?You skim. You might look at a headline.?You might look at a subject line.?But you're basically not reading the stories,?in my case, that we were producing.?And the most humbling moment, the eye-opening, the aha moment for me:?I was a journalist, I was at Politico writing columns about President Obama.?And we wrote this column, and I looked at the traffic numbers?and the White House had to respond to it.?And boy, was I feeling cool and smart ...?until I looked at the data.?So back then you had to paginate pages online.?And so, you know, you had to click from one page to the next to keep reading.?And I looked at the data.?This was a 1600-word column?that everyone in Washington was talking about,?that had me feeling so confident.?And I realized almost nobody went past the first page.

那么為什么要這樣呢？?為什么，我一輩子都在大量寫作，?但想讓人們少寫文字？?因?yàn)閿?shù)據(jù)——還有你們 ——讓我不得不這么做。?如果你們仔細(xì)看看自己在做什么——?科技最有趣的一點(diǎn)，?科技最恐怖的一點(diǎn)就是?企業(yè)會非常了解你。?你做了什么事，去了什么地方， 買了什么東西。?如果是媒體公司， 那他們就知道你如何獲取信息。?這些數(shù)據(jù)真讓人大跌眼鏡，?說實(shí)話，讓我感到非常羞恥。?我也就踏上了這段旅程，?我看著這數(shù)據(jù)，?數(shù)據(jù)基本上顯示： 你們基本上什么都沒讀。?你們或許掃讀，看一看頭條，?或許看一眼標(biāo)題，?但你們基本上不會讀正文內(nèi)容，?不會去讀我們發(fā)布的內(nèi)容。?最讓我愧疚， 最讓我大吃一驚的是時候：?當(dāng)時我是一名記者， 我在為奧巴馬總統(tǒng)寫專欄。?我們發(fā)表專欄文章， 然后我會查閱流量數(shù)據(jù)，?白宮還必須做出回復(fù)。?天啊，當(dāng)時我感覺自己很酷，很聰明……?直到我查看了數(shù)據(jù)。?那時候，線上文章需要分頁。?所以你完一頁 必須點(diǎn)擊下一頁才能繼續(xù)讀，?我查看了數(shù)據(jù)。?那是一篇 1600 字的專欄文章，?當(dāng)時華盛頓的人都在討論這篇文章，?所以我對自己很有信心，?然后我意識到基本沒有人 看完了第一頁。

It gets worse.?On one page, there's only 450 words.?And I hid a lot of the good stuff at the end.?And so it turns out that people were responding, sharing,?talking about a story that almost nobody read.?And so it put me on sort of this journey, this discovery.?I'm like, really, like, nobody reads anything??Is this true everywhere, is it just me, is there something about my writing?

還有更糟糕的，?第一頁只有 450 詞，?我在文章末尾藏了不少有趣的內(nèi)容。?原來人們交流、分享、?討論的是一篇幾乎沒人讀過的文章。?就這樣我踏上這段旅程，我開始研究。?我想，真的嗎，沒有人讀？?其他地方也是這樣嗎，?只有我遇到這種情況嗎，是我寫得不好嗎？

So I called my friends at the "New York Times."?I called our friends at Facebook.?I started to talk to academics?and try to figure out, well, what's going on here.?Because I had a choice at this point.?I could give up on all of you. I could give up on humanity.?I could give up on my career.?Or I could do what basically Jeff Bezos would do?if he's trying to sell you a shoe or get you to buy a book.?Which is, what is the data telling us??What do you want? What are you doing??And that data was showing that one,?everybody was getting hit with more information than ever before?and is perpetually distracted,?all because of the internet.?You skim. You don't really read.?And you share stuff without even bothering to see what it actually means?or what the story might say.

所以我聯(lián)系了我在《紐約時報》的朋友，?聯(lián)系了我在臉書的朋友。?我開始與學(xué)者們談話，?我想弄清楚究竟為什么會這樣。?因?yàn)槲耶?dāng)時有一個選擇。?我可以放棄讀者們，放棄人性化的追求，?我可以放棄整個職業(yè)生涯。?或者我可以做杰夫·貝索斯 （Jeff Bezos亞馬遜總裁）?賣鞋或者是賣書時做的事情。?數(shù)據(jù)告訴我們了什么？?你們想要什么？你在做什么？?數(shù)據(jù)顯示，第一，?所有人都在被空前的信息量裹挾，?這些信息非常分散人的注意力，?都是因?yàn)榛ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)。?人們一目十行，并不會認(rèn)真閱讀。?轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)之前甚至不愿意 認(rèn)真看看內(nèi)容是什么意思，?或者這個文章具體是說什么的。

And if you think about it,?the deeper I dug, the more it actually made sense.?For people who are my age or older,?like once upon a time, the iPhone didn't exist.?The Android didn't exist.?There was no Facebook. There was no Google.?If you wanted to learn about something new,?you had to go to an encyclopedia.?You wanted to look up a word, you went to a dictionary.?If you were waiting for news,?you had to wait for the evening news or the morning newspaper.?And then suddenly 2007, that period comes along,?and now all of us had the opportunity to have a smartphone?with astonishing capabilities?to give us access to more information than at any point of humanity.?Any idea we had, anything we didn't know,?we could Google it.?Any idea we had, no matter how stupid it was,?we could share it.?And not only could we share it,?we could find other people who would applaud,?who would follow us, who'd fan us.?And suddenly, oh my gosh,?like, we've got all this access to mass information at scale.?And you could do this for free.?You could do this for free.?So suddenly we're getting hit with all this information,?and I don't think our species was built to keep up with it.

所以我聯(lián)系了我在《紐約時報》的朋友，?聯(lián)系了我在臉書的朋友。?我開始與學(xué)者們談話，?我想弄清楚究竟為什么會這樣。?因?yàn)槲耶?dāng)時有一個選擇。?我可以放棄讀者們，放棄人性化的追求，?我可以放棄整個職業(yè)生涯。?或者我可以做杰夫·貝索斯 （Jeff Bezos亞馬遜總裁）?賣鞋或者是賣書時做的事情。?數(shù)據(jù)告訴我們了什么？?你們想要什么？你在做什么？?數(shù)據(jù)顯示，第一，?所有人都在被空前的信息量裹挾，?這些信息非常分散人的注意力，?都是因?yàn)榛ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)。?人們一目十行，并不會認(rèn)真閱讀。?轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)之前甚至不愿意 認(rèn)真看看內(nèi)容是什么意思，?或者這個文章具體是說什么的。

I talked to a guy at the University of Maryland?who's studied students for the last decade,?and he basically found that even when you choose to read something,?even when you make the choice that this is important,?you spend on average 26 seconds looking at it.?Review.org and others?have looked at how many times do you look at your screen in a day.?They found it's at least 250 times you're checking your phone.?And for those that don't think that's true,?think about how many times you've either checked it?or thought about checking it since I started babbling.

我與來自馬里蘭大學(xué)的一個人談話，?他過去十年都在做有關(guān)學(xué)生的研究，?基本上，他發(fā)現(xiàn)即使你想要讀些什么，?即使你告訴自己這很重要，?你只會花平均 26 秒閱讀。?測評網(wǎng)站（Review.org）等機(jī)構(gòu)?調(diào)查了人們每天查看手機(jī)屏幕的次數(shù)，?發(fā)現(xiàn)人們至少查看手機(jī) 250 次。?大家要是不信的話，?想一想我站在這里嘮嘮叨叨的時候，?你們有幾次看了或者想看手機(jī)，

Our data shows that more often than not,?if you share a story on social media, you never read it.?Think about that: like there’s something about a headline or a photo?that got you so jacked up that you're going to share it?like you're a little lemming.?And we all do it because our brains are being, like,?flooded with information.

我與來自馬里蘭大學(xué)的一個人談話，?他過去十年都在做有關(guān)學(xué)生的研究，?基本上，他發(fā)現(xiàn)即使你想要讀些什么，?即使你告訴自己這很重要，?你只會花平均 26 秒閱讀。?測評網(wǎng)站（Review.org）等機(jī)構(gòu)?調(diào)查了人們每天查看手機(jī)屏幕的次數(shù)，?發(fā)現(xiàn)人們至少查看手機(jī) 250 次。?大家要是不信的話，?想一想我站在這里嘮嘮叨叨的時候，?你們有幾次看了或者想看手機(jī)，

And what I thought when I did the discovery,?I thought, for sure the brain must be getting rewired.?And you hear that often.?There's very little scientific proof that that's true.?What happened and what we think is happening?is, as a species, we've always been prone to distraction.?We think we're good multitaskers. Almost nobody is.?We're good at doing one thing if you're focused on it.?The University of California, Irvine, studied this.?They studied our distractibility?and found that if you get distracted on something,?it takes you 20 minutes to truly refocus.?Now think about your day.?It's just awash in distraction.?Awash in words: tweeted words, texted words, Slacked words, email words.?Words, words, words.?And then you peck at your little computer looking for more.?So no wonder nobody's paying attention to almost anything you're saying or doing.?No wonder it's so hard to get people to pay attention to anything.

我研究這些事時以為，?我以為，大腦一定會重新布線。?大家也經(jīng)常聽到這種說法，?但是很少有科學(xué)研究結(jié)果證實(shí)。?現(xiàn)實(shí)情況，或我們認(rèn)為的情況是?人類經(jīng)常容易分散注意力。?我們自以為能同時完成多項(xiàng)任務(wù)， 但其實(shí)沒人是這樣。?人類擅長集中注意力做一件事情。?加州大學(xué)歐文分校做了相關(guān)研究。?他們研究了人類注意力分散，?發(fā)現(xiàn)如果人的注意力被分散，?那要花 20 分鐘 才能真正重新集中注意。?現(xiàn)在想一想自己的一天，?簡直是泛濫的干擾。?泛濫的文字：推特、信息、 通訊軟件、郵件。?文字、文字、文字。?然后你們又會在小電腦上繼續(xù)看文字。?所以怪不得基本上你說的、 做的所有事都沒人留意。?怪不得想讓人集中注意有那么難。

So at Axios, as we thought about this,?we said, listen, if the consumer’s saying they want more information quicker?and they're not going to spend that much time?and you want to stay in journalism,?what would you do? What would you do??And our solution was what we call Smart Brevity,?that people want smart content, essential content.?But they want it delivered efficiently, as fast as humanly possible.?And we saw it in how people were getting our information,?how they were getting it elsewhere.?And so we built a whole company around it to teach journalists how to do it.?And journalists kind of adapted right away.?And suddenly we had awesome readership almost overnight,?people in the White House, CEOs, tech leaders.

所以在值得，我們思考這一點(diǎn)，?我們想，如果讀者想快速獲取信息，?不會在這上面花太多時間，?而我又想留在新聞界，?你會怎么做？你會怎么做？?我們的解決辦法是 智慧簡潔（Smart Brevity）。?人們想要智慧的內(nèi)容，重要的內(nèi)容，?還想要高效獲取，越快越人性化越好。?我們觀察人們從我們這里 獲取信息的模式、?從別處獲取信息的模式。?所以我們圍繞這個概念 成立了一家公司，教記者怎么去做。?記者們很快采用了學(xué)到的技能。?我們幾乎一夜之間就有了大量讀者，?有白宮工作人員、 CEO 、 科技行業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。

And then two interesting things happened after that.?I started to get not ten or 20,?literally hundreds of notes from readers saying,?"Thank you, you're trying to save me time. I can tell."?I never asked for a thank you, especially when you cover politics,?you're lucky not to get hit by a shoe,?much less actually have someone thank you for it.?But I was like, "Oh, that is interesting."

之后發(fā)生了兩件有趣的事情。?我收到了不是十幾二十個，?而是上百條讀者留言說，?“謝謝，我看得出來 你努力為我節(jié)省時間?！?我從未設(shè)想別人會感謝我， 尤其是我報道政治新聞，?沒被鞋砸就算幸運(yùn)了，?有人感謝你就更不太可能了。?但我想，“這很有趣?！?/span>

And then about a year and a half in, we started to get calls from companies,?from the NBA, from startups,?and almost all were saying the same thing:?"Hey, our executives, our people, they're reading Smart Brevity,?but they won't read anything that we do internally.?This led me on another journey to figure out why people can't get people?to read about things that are happening at their company?or happening at their school or happening at their startup.?And it turned out that basically?people were vomiting so many words in all these places?that nobody was paying attention to it.?And that's where we thought,?oh, Smart Brevity could work in almost any setting.

一年半之后，我們開始接到公司的電話，?有 NBA 還有初創(chuàng)公司，?他們的訴求基本上是一樣的：?“嘿，我們公司的高管和員工 都在讀智慧簡潔，?但是他們卻不愿意讀我們內(nèi)部的資料，”?就這樣我踏上了另一段旅程，探究為什么?讓人們愿意讀自己公司、?學(xué)校、初創(chuàng)團(tuán)隊(duì)的內(nèi)部資料那么難。?原來，基本上人們?每天在各種場合輸出大量?沒人會認(rèn)真看的文字。?然后我們想，?哦，智慧簡潔可以作用于任何場景中。

So we get a call from the CIA, the head of the CIA.?They call us, and they say,?"Listen, can you guys come in and talk to our team?about how spies can essentially give a much more crisper explanation?of what they're seeing on the ground??Like, what are the threats??They're not great communicators. These messages are meandering."

這樣， CIA 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)聯(lián)系了我們。?他們說，?“你們可以來教我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)?如何讓間諜本質(zhì)上更清楚地描述?現(xiàn)場看見的情況嗎？?比方說有哪些威脅？?他們不太善于交流，給出的信息太迂回?！?/span>

So my partner goes in, talks to the CIA,?explains the tricks and tips I’m going to give you in a second.?And in the audience is a guy who writes the Presidential Daily Brief,?and this was under Donald Trump,?and he would write it, go in, and they would brief him.?And he was so enamored with this idea of communicating more effectively?that he quit and now works for us,?teaching other people how to communicate more effectively.

這樣， CIA 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)聯(lián)系了我們。?他們說，?“你們可以來教我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)?如何讓間諜本質(zhì)上更清楚地描述?現(xiàn)場看見的情況嗎？?比方說有哪些威脅？?他們不太善于交流，給出的信息太迂回?！?/span>

I'm not blaming Trump. It's because of us, because of Axios.?Around the same time, Jamie Dimon,?one of the most famous CEOs of our generation,?he writes his annual letter.?It's 32,000 words long,?about his observations on banking and on the world.?32,000 words is basically a book.?So he's probably lucky if even his family members read it.?So his staff calls us, and they say,?"Hey, listen. It seems like you guys are good?at getting people to pay attention to information.?Could you do a Smart Brevity version of it?"

我沒有說特朗普不好的意思。 是因?yàn)槲覀?，因?yàn)橹档谩?同一時間，摩根大通 CEO 杰米·戴蒙（Jamie Dimon）,?我們這一代最杰出的銀行家之一，?他寫公司的年度信。?這封年度信有 32,000 詞，?內(nèi)容是他對銀行業(yè)及世界的觀察。?32000 詞就基本上是一本書了。?所以如果他的家人 愿意讀一讀就很不錯了。?他的員工聯(lián)系到我們說，?“看起來你們很擅長?讓人們留意信息。?你們可以做一個 智慧簡潔版本的年度信嗎”？

So we took his most important points, turned 32,000 words into a couple hundred,?and voila, they got much more engagement,?much more traction in people seeing what's important,?remembering what's important.

我們提取年度信的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)， 將 32,000 詞縮減成了幾百詞，?就這樣，人們更加投入，?更能吸引人們關(guān)注重要的部分，?記住重要的部分。

So what I want to leave you with are what are some of the basic tips.?Because you probably know, you're frazzled, you're distracted,?you can see it.?When you're trying to send a message,?what are the things that you could do differently, starting today,?to become a vastly more effective communicator?

這樣，我想與大家分享一些基本的技巧。?因?yàn)橐苍S你自己也注意到了， 你備受干擾、疲憊不堪，?你能看得到。?我們發(fā)信息時，?從今天開始，我們可以做出什么改變，?來大大提高溝通效率？

Number one, stop being selfish.?Stop being selfish.?What do I mean by that??So much of writing is self-indulgent.?We write about what we care about,?and we write at the length that we want to write about.?We don't think about the whole purpose of it,?which is what is the person that I'm writing this for, or talking to,?what do they actually need to know??What do they actually care about??Reverse the way you think about communicating.?At our company, the first two words of our manifesto are: "Audience first."?How do you serve the people that you're trying to reach?

第一，不要自私。?不要自私。?這是什么意思？?許多文字都太自我放縱了。?我們只寫自己關(guān)注的事情，?自己想寫多長就寫多長。?我們不會思考寫作的整體目的，?也就是我們寫作或談話的目標(biāo)受眾，?他們想知道什么？?他們真正在乎的是什么？?逆轉(zhuǎn)你的溝通思維模式。?我們公司價值觀的前兩個詞就是： “讀者優(yōu)先”。?如何效忠于你的讀者？

The Holy Father himself has blessed this concept indirectly.?So Pope Francis just gave a speech recently?in Slovakia, where he was talking to priests?about the homilies that they're giving.?And he said, “You have to stop giving 30 and 40 minute homilies,?and they should be 10 minutes.?Because no one’s listening to you.?You’re losing them. People don’t pay attention that long.”?And he joked when he made the announcement?that the loudest applause came from the nuns?because, in his words, they're the ones?who have to suffer through your long-windedness.

教皇本人還間接地認(rèn)同了這一概念。?弗朗西斯教皇（Pope Francis） 最近在斯洛伐克的?演講中對牧師們?談到了布道。?他說，“你們不要再布道三四十分鐘了，?十分鐘就行了。?因?yàn)闆]人會聽的。?人們會失去興趣。 他們不會認(rèn)真聽那么長時間的?！?他還開玩笑說，他這么說的時候?尼姑們的掌聲最激烈，?因?yàn)?，他的原話說，她們?必須忍受你們的長篇大論。

So point two is: grab me.?Whenever you're communicating --?again, I don't care if it's in an email, if it's a tweet, if it's a note,?if it's a memo to a friend, grab me.?What is the most important thing, the reason you're writing??What is that one thing, if you only had that 26 seconds I mentioned,?what is the one thing you want me to remember about it?

那么第二點(diǎn)是：抓住我。?你在溝通時——?再說一遍，不管是郵件、推文、便條，?還是給朋友的備忘錄，抓住我。?最重要的一點(diǎn)是什么， 你寫作的目的是什么？?如果你只有我提到的 26 秒， 你會寫哪一點(diǎn)，?你最想讓我記住哪一點(diǎn)？

Which is related to tip three, which is: just keep it simple.?Keep it simple.?Like think of that one sentence,?one sentence is better than two sentences.?One paragraph is better than two paragraphs.?Use simple, strong words.?There's a reason you're taught a simple sentence structure?when you're a little kid.?It still works effectively today.?It still works effectively. Keep it simple.?If you're going to write about a banana,?you're not going to call it an elongated yellow piece of fruit.?You're going to call it a banana.?If you're going to talk about someone lying,?you're not going to say prevaricate, you're going to say lie.?Keep it simple.

這樣也就來到了第三點(diǎn)， 也就是一切從簡。?一切從簡。?考慮只用一個句子，?一句比兩句好。?一段比兩端好。?使用簡潔有力的詞語。?大家小時候?qū)W的都是 簡單的句子結(jié)構(gòu)，?這是有道理的。?這些簡單的句子現(xiàn)在用也很高效。?現(xiàn)在仍然很高效。一切從簡。?如果要描寫一個香蕉，?不要寫加長黃色水果。?就寫香蕉就可以了。?如果要說有人說謊了，?不要用推諉，用說謊就好了。?一切從簡。

Which relates as well to point four,?which is: be human.?Write like a human.?I see this in journalism all the time.?I don't understand what happened to our species?that when you put a pen in our hand or a keyboard in front of us,?we suddenly stiffen up,?think we're a Harvard professor or we're Walt Whitman,?and we try to show off in our writing.?Like, if I was talking to you in the bar,?I'm not going to use SAT words, I'm not going to talk in acronyms.?I'm not going to use wordy clauses.?I'm going to talk like I'm talking to you now.?I'm going to talk like a human.?So stop, stop using those big terms.?You think that people think you're smart when you use them? They don't.?They just want to throw a shoe at you.

這樣就來到了第四點(diǎn)，?也就是：做個凡人。?像凡人一樣寫作。?我總是見到記者們這樣。?我不知道人類這個物種是怎么了，?一旦手里有支筆，或者面前有鍵盤，?就非常僵硬緊繃，?自以為是哈佛教授，或美國詩人 沃爾特·惠特曼（Walt Whitman），?想顯示一下自己的文筆。?如果我要跟你在酒吧聊天，?我不會用美國高考詞匯的， 也不會用縮略詞，?不會用那些累贅的從句。?我不會像現(xiàn)在那樣說話。?我會想普通人一樣說話。?所以停下吧，不要用那些大詞。?你以為你用那些詞別人 會以為你很聰明？不會的。?他們只想拿鞋砸你。

Which leads me to point five, which is just stop.?Just stop.?The greatest gift that you can give yourself and others?in this cluttered world?is their time back and is your time back.?Use as few words, as few sentences as humanly possible?so that that person gets the message you want?and you both get the time back that you deserve.

這就說到了第五點(diǎn)，停下吧。?停下吧。?在這個紛雜的世界，?你能給自己和別人的最好禮物?就是把時間還給別人，還給自己。?用越少的詞，越少的句子， 越人性化越好，?這樣讀者就能獲取你傳達(dá)的信息，?你們都能拿回自己的時間。

And I can tell you this, I've seen it in my own life.?If you just start to think about the efficiency of communication,?if you put into practice a couple of the tips that I just talked about,?you will see in your own mind that you start to think more clearly,?talk more clearly, write more clearly.?And you'll see ultimately that it's selfishly good for you?because you'll be heard again.

我敢保證，我親眼見證過，?如果你開始思考溝通效率，?如果你試一試我剛才提到的技巧，?你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)自己思路更清晰，?談吐更流暢，寫作更有條理。?你最終會發(fā)現(xiàn)， 這是對你自己有好處的，?因?yàn)槟愕穆曇裟鼙宦牭搅恕?/span>

Thank you.

謝謝