I know, but I expect better from somebody who calls himself "educated", has contributed to the VM and arroaches to call the involved people "ignorant".
I also honestly don't see why that distinction is so hard to grasp. After all C is also a language, and there are many well-known compilers (GCC, MSVC, ICC, ...), and most programmers are aware of that fact.
Frankly speaking as per most people gcc runs the whole c programming language. They don't really care how c implementation is different than specification.
Most people are idiots, in the Latin sense of the word: So what if the layman (or the expert who fails to look beyond the rim of his own teacup) doesn't care as long as there's a significant number of people who do? In particular, just because a lot of C developers are stuck with C90 (thanks to Microsoft's decision to focus on C++ and C# and the status quo in the embedded world) doesn't change the fact that those of us who are not, do appreciate C99 and C11.
Moritz' point stands: The merits of Perl6 the language should be judged independantly from the perceived shortcomings of Parrot the VM implementation and Rakudo the compiler (and please do not forget about Niecza on Mono/.NET). Just because historically, the standard Ruby interpreter has been performing rather poorly, doesn't mean Ruby is a bad language. Conversely, just because Java is a boring language, doesn't mean that the JVM isn't a nice piece of engineering.
One can critize the the Parrot/Rakudo effort for not producing a 'production-ready' implementation after years of development, but please keep in mind that hindsight is 20/20, and many of the people responsible for some questionable decisions early-on are no longer involved with the project.