On 2014-12-18 11:30:59 +0000, Julie Bove said:

> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:58:57 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-12-17 23:49:21 +0000, Julie Bove said:
>>>
>>>> "Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2014-12-17 20:21:27 +0000, Julie Bove said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:09:21 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:46:45 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> She took the photo last night so here we go!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://i.imgur.com/nsvBZLc.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how that's written? "2 cups COOKED wild rice".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That recipe was written correctly. But as it gets poassed through the
>>>>>>>> grapevine it's gets all mangled by idiots. That's a real peeve of
>>>>>>>> mine (can you tell?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "2 cups COOKED wild rice" means exactly the same as "2 cups wild rice,
>>>>>>> cooked". Like most people the dwarf hasn't a clue about comma usage.
>>>>>>> Truth is either is culinarily incorrect, wild rice is best cooked in
>>>>>>> the soup... but first I toast wild rice in a dry pan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't, Sheldon. Go back to cooking 101.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please tell me the difference between these then:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 medium chopped onion
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 medium onion, chopped
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people would agree that they are identical in meaning. One has to
>>>>> also penetrate into the meaning of a recipe in order to be successful.
>>>>> Some recipes lack certain information that is vital, others advocate
>>>>> treatments that would result in underdone, overdone, flavorless, or
>>>>> overly-seasoned food. Sometimes this isn't even the fault of the
>>>>> recipe writer. A recipe written in Denver could easily fail at sea
>>>>> level.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the same because it's a medium onion. But 2 cups of something
>>>> uncooked is not usually the same as 2 cups of something that has
>>>> already been cooked. If you take 2 cups of raw wild rice and cook it,
>>>> the end result will be 6-8 cups of rice. So if the recipe is written
>>>> as 2 cups, cooked...then it means 2 cups of raw rice, cooked. But if
>>>> it says 2 cooked cups of wild rice then it means 2 cups of rice after
>>>> it has been cooked. That's just basic knowledge.
>>>
>>> No, it's not "basic knowledge."
>>>
>>> What about this then:
>>>
>>> 1 onion, chopped
>>>
>>> 1 chopped onion
>>>
>>> By your reasoning above these indicate different things because they
>>> don't say "medium." That makes no sense, as I hope you can see.
>>
>> I think we have a new suitor for Jerry Sauk over in
>> alt.food.fast-food. Those two were made for each other.
>
> Maybe so. Wonder how many recipes he screws up?

Just for your elucidation, I can't remember the last time I felt
compelled to actually follow a recipe. Accomplished cooks don't need
'em and look at them with something of a blend of suspicion and
contempt. I do read recipes but only to perhaps glean an idea or two.
There are too many variables to consider and I have seen questionable
recipe steps even from the likes of Heston Blumenthal and Jacques Pepin.

Anyway I certainly wouldn't deliberately screw up a recipe (if I
decided to use one) because I decided to misread one, as you seem to be
determined to do.