By mid September 2000 anyone paying attention should have known that the estimate from the group for an alpha (which Larry had simply relayed on that first day) was going to be years off.
Would you then suggest that subsequent communications from the core team about an 18 month schedule (take, for example, the original project manager upholding his 18 month timeline from mid-September 2000) were made in bad faith?
That's not helping your argument.
I suppose you could point to this end of September update that the schedule would move by *two weeks*, but that's also not helping your argument.
Seems weird to hew so closely to "what Larry actually intended in the announcement" and then immediately walk it back with "but everyone knew that was a lie by September" while jumping way over what Larry actually said in September.
I am continually amused and disappointed by P6 advocates trying to revise history when that history is so easily searched.