It's not about personal. I'm arguing above about reasoning.

However, these projects can be useful:

• Enigma@home works to decode Enigma messages sent by the Nazis during the Second World War. The project does so cleverly - using a hill climbing algorithm to reduce the number of decryption attempts needed.

Can you explain how does it constitute usefulness?

Also I wrote:

Does (enigma@home) decoded message you describe here add anything significant to the knowledge already gathered in the books? No.

Being an interesting from historical point of view and useful is two different things. I don't really stand against enigma, what did I show is that the same reasoning defends Moo!Wrapper too.

Can you explain what useful or at least historically significant is in the message @dutch wrote a very interesting article about? (Linked in my previous comment). While I find decoded message is historically interesting, I don't see why it is historically significant.

Enigma being "solved" was one of the reasons often cited as a contributing factor to fall of the Nazis.

Are we still fighting Nazis?

Polish and later British mathematicians did great job. And they had no computers.

The lesson is - usefulness as a criterion for listing and de-listing projects is a very tricky one.