I haven't read all his posts, and I imagine you're describing them accurately, but this actually is what it looks like when someone's frustrated from wrestling with a subject. Yes, it would be better if they took the time to frame their questions in more productive ways, and even more so if they took the time to respond to the help people try to give them.
I'm not defending anyone's posts, only suggesting that it's better to take someone at their word – in this case, that he was finding himself losing confidence in Dramatica – rather than imputing motives when it isn't necessary. Look, my point is simple: not every problem one has with Dramatica is suited for being solved on the forums here. Answers are always offered, but after a time, frustration with the questioner appears and it can get sufficiently aggressive that it's more discouraging than helpful.
Before you respond to that, let me make the following observation:
String theory is not a religion – it's a cosmological theory. Yet it carries assumptions, and there are contrasting theories, so yes, there comes a point where you have to decide which of those theories you believe.
Astronomy isn't a religion, but when individuals over-extend it, for example, trying to use it to describe the lives of human beings, it becomes astrology, and is, regrettably, nonsense.
That's not actually true. Newton's theory of gravity works great, but it's both incomplete and, when you work down to the bottom assumptions, incorrect. The formulas work (on earth and at a scale we relate to, anyway), which is great – and they work even though they totally fail to account for things that happen on larger and smaller scales.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I have no idea if Dramatica is true or not. As a writer, I'm not in search of a theory that explains why stories work – I'm only interested in tools that help me write better ones.
Two problems here: first this was precisely what YS was complaining about: twenty years of the theory being out there and nobody can name famous authors or screenwriters who use it other than a few brief mentions from the past and some hack fantasy writer who still doesn't have his long-deserved Pulitzer prize for literature.
Second, I know when you see those 400 storyforms they look like perfect explanations of the movies described, but to me – and I've looked at them a lot – they aren't helpful at all. 400 storyforms without illustrations to show why each plot point fits with the element allocated to it does me no good. I find myself continuously going back to the ones that came with the software because at least few of those have some illustrations for the plot points. Now, maybe I'm the odd one out on this. Maybe most other users can look at those storyforms and instantly see how they fit, but I can't.
This doesn't mean you're wrong. I'm only trying to explain why, for any number of people, it's not just about accepting evidence – because that evidence isn't always visible or compelling if you don't "get" Dramatica already.
That's a 6.0 feature.