For those who are interested I deleted my question about Monroe doctrine. I feel sorry that every question I ask meets with misunderstanding.

@Voitcus I finished typing up a reply seconds after you deleted, so I'll just post it here

You're citing the Roosevelt Corollary, which post-dates the Monroe Doctrine by eight decades and is firmly not part of 19th century history. Secondly, that does not address my point at all. Roosevelt was claiming for the US policing powers over American nations, not advocating for America to go to war against European powers in the Americas.

In my opinion 19th century ended in 1914. For my question it is ok.

Why did not anybody answer "hey, take a look at MD itself". It would be enough to cite "... that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers (...) With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere."

cited from ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=23&page=transcript

I only wanted to know if USA had performed any actions like naval blockade, war, sending notes to ambassadors, performing embargo etc. and they had backed it up with "sorry, we have Monroe doctrine, please go away"

What is wrong with my questions?

The same was here history.stackexchange.com/q/23094/2395

This led to a discussion about economy, was this loan a bond, Consols, was it profitable, did bank make a good business etc.

" With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.""

exactly, which is why your question made no sense

Monroe explicitly stated they dont want to invade existing European territories

I asked if you realised this

and you responded by quoting Roosevelt >__>

Here history.stackexchange.com/q/21507/2395 I was told that I ask crazy question and pervert

No I did not realise, I had not read the MD before

Basic research failure aside, that would be why I asked if you realised it

an honest answer of "no" would lead to an explaination

you can't really blame me for not presuming ignorance

I don't blame you, I'm sorry if you feel so

Your napoleonic bonds question should be satisfactorily answered by the comments

The discussion demonstrated that perpetual bonds can achieve profitability for the state under certain conditions

I don't really know why you are complaining about illustrating the attractiveness of that to you with examples

Only Tyler Durden called you crazy in the death penalty question

This site is not a discussion, but Q&A. I expected that such discussion would be inserted by someone in an answer. That one will say "it is profitable for government, because... but on the other way it is profitable to a customer, because..."

you should know by now that's the kind of person he is

It's not "dsicussion"

It's a short answer contained in the comments, you can't just dismiss it because you don't understand how interest rates work

Steve Bird wrote an excellent answer in that case, but not everyone will be willing to invest in a long answer for each question, and it is hardly fruitful to exclude short answers in the form of comments.

I do understand. I feel hm... stupid because I can't write a question, I need to explain, but I feel I will need to write long question nobody is going to read

In the bonds question there were three sub-question: why was it profitable to Government? Why was it profitable to people? And if it was profitable, why did not anybody else do this?

It's not like your question got closed or anything, I don't understand why you're complaining

if you feel like parts of your question wasn't answered, it's because you never ever stated it in a clear, concise manner like you just did now

What was unclear in this question history.stackexchange.com/q/21475/2395 that required 8 comments to explain what I mean?

I just don't understand what I make wrong

There are no "8 comments to explain what" you mean

Mark wrote a small answer-in-comment that titles are just ceremonial

JMVanPelt gave more examples in support

Mark added to his existing point

Those three comments were answers

I have the distinct feeling that you dont' read comments

I try to respond every comment I read (to my question/answer), you can see it

I answered to JMvanPelt, that I disagree

Your response was missing the point, really, that ceremonial titles are just ceremonial

I answered to CGCampbell that he did not understand the question

I just can't believe that "King of France" is a ceremonial title

Why can't you believe that?

That question, by the way, had a lot of parts and was not presented clearly. When you rattle off question marks like that, people are bound to ask, "what exactly do you want to know?"

It doesn't help that your first "part" was answered by your own quotes

I wrote it in the comment: how did the visits look like? "This is His Majesty Louis the XIV, King of France, and this is His Majesty, Charles II, also a King of France". This was a problem for the French if republican diplomats demanded to stop it. So why wasn't it a problem for Louis XIV and it was for Robespierre?

This is the question

You write a lot of things

That wasn't one of them

Many centuries passed between the end of 100 years war and the French Revolution and did nobody ever notice?

I understand that when two kings met on some occasion (or an ambassador was introduced to a king) there was confusing presentation of two "kings of France". - excerpt from the question body

Who said nobody noticed?

Everyone knew

And

Again

You write A LOT of things

It was rhetorical

I know everybody knew

You asked a dozen questions in that post, there is absolutely no indication that "how did meetings go" was "the" question

especially since you flat you said differently in the comments

That's not a rhetorical question, that's a pointless question

I'm sorry - English is not my first language and I need to say some things using more words than necessary, as I sometimes feel I don't have a word. So, from the beginning, in my opinion the question is clear: did anybody demand from England to abandon the title King of France?. Then there was a comment that it was ceremonial, and I can't believe (i said why).

I don't understand why you are so upset with receiving comments to your questions, but at the end of the day you can't write large posts with multiple questions without people wanting to narrow down your subejct matter

Then CGCampbell said that French revolutionary delegates did demand and asked me if I think that peasants should. But I think it was clear when I ask "France" I mean the King of France and at most the French government. And I said that many years passed

YOU ASKED A LOT OF THINGS

Much more than just "France"

I looked and looked but I can't find anything from you

But really

You've changed the question once again

you asked earlier what would happen if they meet

in the comments you asked "Did France beg/ask/demand the English to cease it?", "How did other countries take/recognise this title?" and "Has anyone tried to clear this situation?" (ie. declare that Louis the n-th is the only king of France and George the m-th is not)."

and now you ask, ": did anybody demand from England to abandon the title King of France?"

And you wonder why people think your question is unclear?

you can't even make up your mind about what you want to ask

in just 10 minutes of talking to me

If that really was your question

then state it clearly in the question

without all the other ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

and I'm sure people would find examples for you

It's clear I'm not able to get through to you, so I'll save my breath now

I just want to ponit out again

your questions wasn't closed so really, don't fret about receiving comments

...because if I do not discuss the matter, there will be someone who says "what was your effort?" These questions are connected to one another, the main question is in its title, these are only hmmm... hints what I do expect in an answer, that when I ask "was Hitler the best chancellor of Germany?" I know that he was a chancellor, that he was a chancellor in Germany, and I know that he started ww2.

The same is here. I want to show that I made some research. I know that English used the title "king of France" and I know that it is ceremonial because he was not real king of France. I showed that: yes, I found: some French had problems with it.

The sub-questions are to give advice, what I do not understand. I was thinking about my problem and these questions arose. But all of them are related. I say "had France problems with England?", I explain why I think it can have problems, I show I found that they had a problem but they stated it after 300 years.

But maybe the research was not complete, and I'm wrong: France had problems and demanded it from England, but something happened that England did not agree?

Or again I am wrong and when the English said "this is king of England and France" the French only laughed?

This is my search effort: I did study, I know what possibilities there can be and I ask for clearance.

(I'm sorry I have to leave for about 20 minutes, but thanks for chat)

Well never mind