But that doesn't give Perl 6 folks any rights to call Perl 5 Ugly or Complex or has tough edges and things like that. Or at least by their very own definition until they have proven Perl 6 is just not that after a couple of year use.

I find statements like this weird. It seems to presuppose that "Perl 5 people" and "Perl 6 people" are mutually exclusive. What gives "Perl 6 people" the right to call Perl 5 ugly, complex, etc. is that they've used Perl 5 for perhaps years already. "Perl 6 people" are "Perl 5 people" just dissatisfied with the status quo.

I'm after the folks who think that Perl 5 is too ugly, complex, or otherwise has too many rough edges such that they instead choose some non-Perl-compatible scripting platform altogether.

Did he call Perl 5 ugly? I don't think so. Nor is that a statement I hear often in #perl6 or in other Perl 6 communication channels (except maybe from TimToady, but I guess he has a good right to call it such :-)

But that doesn't give Perl 6 folks any rights to call Perl 5 Ugly or Complex or has tough edges and things like that.

No one needs permission to admit that the Perl 5 dereferencing syntax is ugly, or the special case of variables $main::a and $main::b is inconsistent, or the divergence in return values between system and every other system call, or the typeglob aliasing syntax, or the action at a distance of superglobals (and which ones are in main by default and which aren't?).

Perl 5 has its warts. One goal of Perl 6 is to invent new mistakes.