I think this thread is not exhausted quite, at least for me. Warning: Friday afternoon verbiage lies ahead ...
First, not a few folks who have invested in the software clearly experience a need and need 'support', if only to to be encouraged not to 'worry'. Kudos to staff for being patient.
Second, though a long-time user, I have gained a small, but vital point of clarification myself, namely, that there is a difference between the 'what is it used for?' question and the 'how do I climb the learning curve?' question - admitting some overlap.
As was pointed out, Eastgate is aware of the apparent leap required to move from novice to intermediate and working on it. Neat.
On the former point, I see TbX as a toolbox for exploratory problem solving in situations where a formal application/solution is not available or, perhaps, suitable. In other words, if it can be solved in another piece of software designed specifically for that domain, go for it elsewhere. Alternatively, use TbX to get far enough to use the 'other' app effectively and/or as data input to that application. Use TbX when you can't avoid it is my point - and no shame in that.
Not everything requires or benefits from out-of-the-box exploration (thank goodness, or we would never get anything done). OTOH, some of the most rewarding study, learning, discovery and subsequent formalization demands exploratory work. MB emphasizes in his book that TbX rewards the deferral of formalizing 'x' method or approach until it is truly needed. Quite so. Our culture is biased against admitting the necessity (read: the joy) of learning tools which don't treat us as children or slaves and we are suffering greatly as a result.
TbX demos are useful precisely because they cover such a ridiculously broad set of domains. Sensible users 'get it' that TbX isn't for just 'this' or 'that' - so I don't worry about this leading to misharacterization of the toolbox.
To me, a thread like this is (or could be) most useful if we pushed the discussion itself outside-of-the-box a bit. To wit:
.....why did the original poster say that TbX looked like it could meet his wildest dreams? We don't usually speak this way about software (or I hope we don't)! So, please, what dream are you talking about that, remarkably, this product might allow you to achieve? I argue that the answer to your own question might be found by pursuing that line of thought ...
... and Mark A (of all people) claims that even he hasn't 'scratched the surface' of TbX. I'm not sure if that is depressing or exhilerating. What the heck does that mean (serious question)? We don't usually say this about Word or PHP or even reasonably cool software products. Mark, what do you see 'below the surface' at your level of expertise that remains to be mastered or that could be put to use for you to do ....what?
Bottom line, "the application that can be described is not the application". I think that is a Zen thing? Seriously, that TbX can't be put neatly into a box doesn't mean nothing can be said about its target usage, but emphasizes rather that its architecture matches (as it should) its core use case: exploratory problem-solving for out-of-the-box requirements across a wide set of end-point domains (education, law, business, writing/publishing, religion, daybooks, cooking, movies, fantasy baseball, etc).
Other applications should be so lucky as to have an issue like that ....