I studied what people said, at the time they decided, about what they decided and why, and I studied the environment in which they decided it. I'm not sure how that adds up to buying into someone's post-hoc justification. But you're welcome anytime to stop merely announcing that you disagree with me and explain what about. I will not belabor that invitation further.
I think that's part of the problem--there are too many post-hoc justifications for why things happened the way they did that ignore what actually happened and why people made the decisions they did.
Dan's Parrot postmortem is still accurate: there just wasn't the will to turn P6 into a real, stable, shipping product, and there wasn't the honest acknowledgement that P6 wouldn't be a realistic replacement for Perl until far too late.