Not sure where I did that, but if I did suggest that this case represents all cases of someone wrestling with Dramatica then I hereby retract that suggestion.
I hear you, and I'm neither suggesting that you should have allowed it to go on nor that the individual in question needs to be tagged as a "bad egg". As I wrote earlier, his posts – to me – indicated someone coming with a problem that isn't suited to be solved on this forum. If you want assistance on the intricacies of string theory, then the forum on a string theory site is probably a good place to go. If you're having trouble buying into (accepting, believing, or otherwise seeing the merits of) string theory, then all you're likely to do on that forum is raise the same issues that have been raised a thousand times before and pretty soon it's going to look like trolling.
The difficulty the poster in question was having could probably be solved one-on-one, where someone can focus all their attention on the discussion, respond with deeper questions of what that person's wrestling with on the writing or comprehension side, and "tune" responses to what that individual is having trouble hearing. It could also be solved by the person just dealing with it themselves, flailing as we all do at various points in our creative process, and either coming to a new understanding or maybe abandoning Dramatica for now.
Every forum has the right to determine what content best serves its audience. Content in the form of "I'm just not buying into this stuff – convince me you're right" doesn't seem to produce positive results here, most likely because the bulk of the user base is more concerned with learning how to deal with the intricacies of Dramatica rather than constantly debating if it works or not.
That thing you keep seeing right in front of you? I don't see it, or at least, I see something that doesn't look like what you're describing. That isn't "refusing to accept the evidence in front of you".
To give this a practical example, you can point to a storyform for a movie and say, "look, it's right there in front of you! It perfectly describes that movie, why can't you accept that?" But I'm watching the same movie and what I'm thinking is, "Well, I suppose you could shoe-horn it into that storyform, but I see all these other storyforms that seem to describe it just as well." I may be wrong, but it's not belligerence or lack of intellect or failure to accept the obvious – it's that I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
Let me put it another way: how many times have you seen someone shoe-horn movies into the Hero's Journey? They can do it pretty much every time. Sometimes it seems to fit perfectly, other times it feels like they're seriously reaching. That person can just as easily come back with, "why can't you accept the obvious evidence before your eyes? Andrew from Whiplash is the hero, and this part here where he kicks his drum kit over is so obviously the 'Refusal of the Call'!"
I can tell you line for line why The Maltese Falcon is a complete storyform, but the official entry here still says it's a tale. Why can't you all see the evidence right in front of your eyes, damn it!
The mechanism for placing a pre-existing story into a storyform is interpretation, not simply observation. That means we're not always going to agree on what we're seeing. That doesn't mean Dramatica isn't objective or that there isn't an objective storyform somewhere. It just means that not seeing what you're seeing isn't the same thing as refusing to accept evidence.