[MizSterious]

Perry did nothing “stupid” regarding the epithet. He leased the land for hunting, found the rock, found it offensive, and painted over it. What’s “stupid” about that? You DO understand the concept of a hunting lease, don’t you? We lease our place out to hunters too. Perry did not OWN that land. Depending on the terms of the lease, it’s likely he could only hunt there.

[Carry_Okie]

Perry did nothing “stupid” regarding the epithet. He leased the land for hunting, found the rock, found it offensive, and painted over it.

Well it all depends upon whom you choose to believe as to long was it between the time he leased it and when he painted it over.

Perry: “My mother and father went to the lease and painted the rock in either 1983 or 1984,” Perry told the newspaper. “This occurred after I paid a visit to the property with a friend and saw the rock with the offensive word. After my visit I called my folks and mentioned it to them, and they painted it over during their next visit.”

“Ever since, any time I ever saw the rock it was painted over,” Perry said.

Sounds exculpatory, doesn't it? Maybe not.

But the Washington Post spoke with seven anonymous sources who had different recollections, saying they saw the rock with the racial slur on the property during the span that Perry leased the hunting grounds.

If the WP has records of conversation and those people come forward, Perry is now toast.

Perry did not OWN that land. Depending on the terms of the lease, it’s likely he could only hunt there.

This is a worthless exculpation. He had every option not to lease it, or to do so with the stipulation that it be removed. It is his choice with his money, as a customer, not a property owner.