And I really agree with you on that. I hate repeating arguments, if they have been already clearly stated. To agree to disagree is certainly a much better option.
Look, I habe been forced to slow down my comments here, because it was really too exacting. But I am available to continue the discussion, if it remains interesting. My only aim is to defend ID theory, as well as I can. And to get interesting and constructive intellectual confrontation with those who think differently.
Regarding the problem of FI in non biological, non designed systems, I remain firmly convinced of my statement: there is no example of non trivial values.
I don’t think I will discuss further the starry sky, because I believe that I have already shown beyond any possible dount that it is a completely wrong exampler. Unless, of course, Swamidass brings new arguments.
But I feel that I still owe you some better clarification about my position regarding the tornado example. I am absolutely convinced that your analysis of that system oin term of FI is wrong, but maybe I have not explained my points clearly enough.
So, I will make a last attempt at clarification, but I need some more time for that. After that, I leave the last word to you, and we can peacefully agree to disagree. 
One last poiny. I have read in my e-mail a comment by you about my arguments here and the semantic argument. I cannot find it here, maybe it is in the parallel thread.
However, I wanted to confirm that you are perfectly right about that: while I believe that the semantic argument is very important and valid, I have not used it here up to now, and I probably won’t. THe reason is simple: the arguments I have presented here do not need it.
So, I confirm that all my arguments here, the statement that no high levels of FI can be found in non biological and non designed objects, the estimate of FI in proteins, the estimate of the biological resources of our biological planet, and everything else, do not depend in any way on the semantic argument, at least not in the form that I have expressed them. They could certainly be strengthened by semantic considerations, and I will probably mention in the future discussion a minor aspect that is probably pertinent to my discussion, but essentially all my reasonings here are independent from that.
I hope this clarifies the point.
Another point is that, while my argument is more easily shown for digital information, it perfectly applies to non digital systems, too. I will clarify that better in my final discussion about tornadoes.