emotional response中文的八卦，YOUTUBE和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

小帮手：

【云剧场🤩线上观剧】✨✨✨
✨Cloud Theatre, enjoy theatre online!✨

🌟星音符为您诚意打造《红楼梦》话剧，根据史实与原著改编
——让您深刻体验古典名著的艺术魅力🤩13场演出场场满座，好评如潮！

💝演出购票处 Cloud Theatre ：
https://www.cloudtheatre.com/my/shows/the-bream-of-red-mansions/
此次在云剧场上演，票券收入100%捐作抗疫物资❤️

🌹中国古代四大名著之首《红楼梦》话剧🌹
💥必看10大重点💥
✨《红楼梦》在大马首度以话剧演出
✨《红楼梦》根据史实和原著改编
✨知名艺人锺洁希与多位资深演员同台，演员阵容多达26人
✨男主角为全球万里挑一的林霆坚，为寻找贾宝玉剧组发动了全球《寻找贾宝玉》的活动
✨最新3D科技绝美LED背景视觉影像
✨星音符特邀美籍音乐制作人为《红楼梦》话剧操刀，由女主角锺洁希演唱插曲《黑夜将残的炉光》，并与男主角林霆坚深情对唱主题曲《心念》
✨逼真的音效与专业背景音乐配搭
✨精致的古风道具布置
✨精美雅致大气有诚意的古代服装
✨《红楼梦》话剧票券收入100%捐作抗疫物资

🌷由锺洁希领衔主演女主角——出淤泥而不染的林黛玉，💘男主角为全球万里挑一，犹如贾宝玉再现的——林霆坚。为您演绎一场刻骨铭心、至真至爱、荡气回肠的爱情故事❤

📅演出日期：
🤩『第一场』18/09/2021 (六) 8:00p.m. (GMT+8) 【供48小时内观看】
🤩『第二场』27/09/2021 (一) 8:00p.m. (GMT+8) 【供48小时内观看】

🗨 [ 此剧语言为中文，备有中英文字幕]
📲【询问联络】03-55690139 (Ann) https://bit.ly/3yyzYJk

《红楼梦》话剧——谁为情种？
❤眼空蓄泪泪空垂，暗洒闲抛却为谁~

Cloud Theatre, enjoy theatre online! ✨✨✨
The play “The Dream of Red Mansions” was met with overwhelming response, selling out tickets to 13 full houses!

Ticketing platform: Cloud Theatre
https://www.cloudtheatre.com/my/shows/the-bream-of-red-mansions/
🤩100% of the proceeds from the tickets will be donated as Covid-19 medical supplies. Together, let’s do our part and show our love!

🌹 “The Dream of Red Mansions”, an adaptation of the most celebrated classical Chinese novel! 🌹
💥10 reasons why you must watch: 💥
✨This marks the first public performance of the stage play “The Dream of Red Mansions” in Malaysia.
✨ “The Dream of Red Mansions” is based on the original historical novel.
✨Well-known artist Jessie Chung takes the stage with 26 experienced actors.
✨Lead actor Terry Lim, a one-in-a-million actor who portrays Jia Baoyu, was chosen through a worldwide search for a Jia Baoyu lookalike.
✨Stage backdrops created through the latest 3D technology for stunning, lifelike environments.
✨Symphony Theatre invited an American composer to create the soundtrack for “The Dream of Red Mansions,” while lead actress Jessie Chung performed the soundtrack song “A Dying Light in the Dark” and the theme song, “Hearts Apart”—an emotional duet—with lead actor Terry Lim.
✨Accompanied by realistic sound effects and professional background music.
✨Stage design incorporates exquisite ancient Chinese elements and props.
✨Actors wear elegant, refined, majestic and authentic period costumes.
✨100% of the proceeds from the tickets will be donated as Covid-19 medical supplies. Together, let’s do our part and show our love!

🌷Jessie Chung takes the stage as lead actress, portraying the pure and unadulterated Lin Daiyu, while Terry Lim, the lead actor, was chosen out of a ton of applicants from around the world. Come and enjoy a performance of an unforgettable, passionate, and heart-rending love story.

📅Performance Dates:
🤩 First performance:
Saturday, September 18, 2021, 8:00 p.m. (GMT+8)

🤩 Second performance:
Monday, September 27, 2021, 8:00 p.m. (GMT+8)

🗨 (Performed in Mandarin, with Mandarin and English subtitles available.)
📲 Contact us: 03-55690139 (Ann) https://bit.ly/3yyzYJk

“The Dream of Red Mansions,” calling all lovers…❤
“Vain are all these idle tears, tears shed secretly—for whom?”

【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》－ 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】

(Please scroll down for English version.)

近日，各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議，舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制，更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所，民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今，政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由，企圖向校方施壓，大興文字獄，大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。

在中大校園內，有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律，只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異，校方便指鹿為馬，無理指控其內容違法，圖以法律之名打壓言論自由，更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會，直接指派保安人員拆下橫額，完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調，《基本法》性質類近憲法，而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力，政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此，政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名，禁止學生討論香港獨立。

其後，中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而，校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生，反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧，有違教育者之原則，再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。

除此以外，早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世，教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」，更指若該二人不是教大學生，則「放他上網」。翌日，相關閉路電視截圖流出，實在令人髮指。的確，大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當，然而，冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策，當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育，蔡若蓮為其一一護航，年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩，最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩，實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論，卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥，更有機會違反《個人資料（私隱）條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌，他日有學生批評校長，會否亦遭受類似報復？大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖，並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。

《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由，我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重，而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申，言論自由是天賦人權，是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況，堅守我們的自由與權利。

二零一七年九月十日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.

In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.

Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.

Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.

Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.

10 September 2017

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言