What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html

On 2014-09-08 00:22:27 +0000, theszak said:

> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
> Gyoza?... for example at
> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html

They are similar but I perceive the ravioli dough to be thicker and
heavier than gyoza. Ravioli are Italian food and gyoza are, I think,
Japanese. Many cultures have a filled dumpling item -- Slovak pirohy,
Polish pierogi, Ukrainian varenyky, Jewish kreplach, Russian pelmeni,
Italian ravioli, Japanese gyoza, Tibetan momo come to mind.

--
Barb
www.barbschaller.com, last update April 2013

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 19:31:00 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>On 2014-09-08 00:22:27 +0000, theszak said:
>
>> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
>> Gyoza?... for example at
>> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>
>They are similar but I perceive the ravioli dough to be thicker and
>heavier than gyoza. Ravioli are Italian food and gyoza are, I think,
>Japanese. Many cultures have a filled dumpling item -- Slovak pirohy,
>Polish pierogi, Ukrainian varenyky, Jewish kreplach, Russian pelmeni,
>Italian ravioli, Japanese gyoza, Tibetan momo come to mind.

Hmm, you forgot the original, wonton.

"theszak" > wrote in message
...
> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
> Gyoza?... for example at
> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html

whatever they are serving, it is not ravioli.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 19:02:16 -0700, "Pico Rico" >
wrote:

>
> "theszak" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
> > Gyoza?... for example at
> > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>
> whatever they are serving, it is not ravioli.
>
Agree!


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
>
> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html

Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Timo >
wrote:

> On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
> > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> >
> > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>
> Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version

Oh, come on. Anyone who has eaten both can say the only similarity is
dough around a filling.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:29:49 PM UTC+10, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Timo wrote:
> > On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
>
> > > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> > >
> > > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
> >
> > Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version
>
> Oh, come on. Anyone who has eaten both can say the only similarity is
> dough around a filling.

I'd say that Chinese jiaozi/guotie are pretty similar to Japanese gyoza. Given that they have the same name (when written in Chinese characters), it looks like the Japanese recognise the similarity. The Korean version is very similar, too.

Since the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions are more similar to each other than they are to other types of dumplings within their own countries, I'd call them very similar.

On 9/7/2014 6:22 PM, theszak wrote:
> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>
Far thinner dough?

Nope, that's just roll protocol.

On 9/7/2014 2:22 PM, theszak wrote:
> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>

Ravioli can have many different fillings - meats, cheeses, mushrooms,
chocolate(!).

Both the Korean Mandoo and the Japanese Gyoza are versions of the
Chinese potsticker. Mostly they are filled with beef, pork, chicken and
shrimp. Raviolis can have pretty much anything. When I eat a Korean
mandoo, I expect it to have beef or pork, bean sprouts, cabbage, sesame
oil, and of course, garlic. I expect a mixture of pork and shrimp in a
Chinese potsticker. Japanese goyza can be very similar to Chinese
potstickers.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Timo >
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
>> > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
>> > Gyoza?... for example at
>> >
>> > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>>
>> Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is
>> between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version
>
> Oh, come on. Anyone who has eaten both can say the only similarity is
> dough around a filling.

Yes. I have made both too. Although technically you can put any filling
you want in either one, it might not be authentic. And you can shape
Ravioli any way you want. But Pot Stickers always seem to have the same
distinctive shape with sort of a pinched over top. I'm probably not
describing that well. Raviolis are not sealed to look like that.

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 9/7/2014 6:22 PM, theszak wrote:
>> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
>> Gyoza?... for example at
>> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>>
> Far thinner dough?
>
> Nope, that's just roll protocol.

When I was in CA, I could get some refrigerated ravioli that was so thin you
could see the contents within. I loved it because it was pretty low in
carbs. And amazingly the filling never leaked out.

On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:57:26 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Timo wrote:
> > On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:29:49 PM UTC+10, sf wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Timo wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
> >>
> >>> > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> >>> > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
> >>>
> >>> Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version
> >>
> >> Oh, come on. Anyone who has eaten both can say the only similarity is
> >> dough around a filling.
> >
> > I'd say that Chinese jiaozi/guotie are pretty similar to Japanese gyoza.. Given that they have the same name (when written in Chinese characters), it looks like the Japanese recognise the similarity. The Korean version is very similar, too.
> >
> > Since the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions are more similar to each other than they are to other types of dumplings within their own countries, I'd call them very similar.
>
> She's trying to refer to Italian ravioli.

Italian ravioli would be �大利餃 (Mandarin: Yidali jiao), "Italian dumplings", in Chinese, not �貼 (Mandarin: guotie), "potsticker". The dual-language menu is unambiguous, even if one didn't read your earlier comment on Chinese "ravioli".

(And "Peking ravioli" as Bostonian for guotie makes it onto the jiaozi/guotie Wikipedia page.)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Timo >
wrote:

> On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:29:49 PM UTC+10, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Timo wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
> >
> > > > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> > > >
> > > > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
> > >
> > > Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version
> >
> > Oh, come on. Anyone who has eaten both can say the only similarity is
> > dough around a filling.
>
> I'd say that Chinese jiaozi/guotie are pretty similar to Japanese gyoza. Given that they have the same name (when written in Chinese characters), it looks like the Japanese recognise the similarity. The Korean version is very similar, too.
>
> Since the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions are more similar to each other than they are to other types of dumplings within their own countries, I'd call them very similar.

I'll agree with that, but they are far from Italian ravioli.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 03:02:19 -0700 (PDT), Timo >
wrote:

> On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:57:26 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Timo wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:29:49 PM UTC+10, sf wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT), Timo wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:22:27 AM UTC+10, theszak wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> > What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
> > >>> > http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
> > >>>
> > >>> Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version
> > >>
> > >> Oh, come on. Anyone who has eaten both can say the only similarity is
> > >> dough around a filling.
> > >
> > > I'd say that Chinese jiaozi/guotie are pretty similar to Japanese gyoza. Given that they have the same name (when written in Chinese characters), it looks like the Japanese recognise the similarity. The Korean version is very similar, too.
> > >
> > > Since the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions are more similar to each other than they are to other types of dumplings within their own countries, I'd call them very similar.
> >
> > She's trying to refer to Italian ravioli.
>
> Italian ravioli would be ???? (Mandarin: Yidali jiao), "Italian dumplings", in Chinese, not ?? (Mandarin: guotie), "potsticker". The dual-language menu is unambiguous, even if one didn't read your earlier comment on Chinese "ravioli".
>
> (And "Peking ravioli" as Bostonian for guotie makes it onto the jiaozi/guotie Wikipedia page.)

I didn't read his comment and the comparison is far from unambiguous.
If you're trying to say it was on a Bahston Chinese menu, I had no
idea the general public was so clueless in this day and age.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Monday, September 8, 2014 12:01:27 AM UTC-4, Timo wrote:
>
> Their ravioli is "potstickers" in the Chinese. SO the only difference is between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Some comments on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi#Japanese_version

Potstickers are just that, they stick to the pot and
are then released with liquid. This is different to
ravioli.

http://www.richardfisher.com

dsi1 > wrote in
:

> Both the Korean Mandoo and the Japanese Gyoza are versions of
> the Chinese potsticker. Mostly they are filled with beef,
> pork, chicken and shrimp. Raviolis can have pretty much
> anything.

Ravioli is already plural. Putting an "s" on it is redundant.

However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese. and
they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker family.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:02:06 AM UTC-4, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese. and
> they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker family.
>
That's a bit picky, especially as you don't know how potstickers are
cooked. They are not deep fried, but pan fried till they stick to the
pan. Then they are released with liquid, usually broth.

http://www.richardfisher.com

Helpful person > wrote in
:

>> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese.
>> and they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker
>> family.
>>
> That's a bit picky, especially as you don't know how
> potstickers are cooked. They are not deep fried, but pan
> fried till they stick to the pan. Then they are released with
> liquid, usually broth.

However, some dumplings inthe potsticker family ARE deep fried. My
comment stands.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On 2014-09-08, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:02:06 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:

>> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese.

Ravioli con la ricotta

*A simple Emilian variation on Ravioli, with just cheese in the fillin


> There's plenty of commercial and home made ravioli with cheese in
> them. They're probably the majority, even.

Yep. Cheese will always be a major component of processed foods.
It's cheap, filling, and ppl like it. I think the last time I bought
pre-fab stuffed pasta, it was ravioli or tortellini with a bleu cheese
filling.

> Potstickers are to be steamed and pan fried

Correct. P-sticks go into hot pan partially yfilled with liquid/oil.
When liquid cooks off, the p-sticks are sufficiently steamed and stick
to the bottom of the pan, hence the name. Duh.

nb

"Julie Bove" wrote:
>
>Yes. I have made both too. Although technically you can put any filling
>you want in either one, it might not be authentic. And you can shape
>Ravioli any way you want. But Pot Stickers always seem to have the same
>distinctive shape with sort of a pinched over top.
>I'm probably not describing that well.

But... but you claim to be a writter... fact is you're more a
scribbler. I nominate Julie as r.f.c.'s graffiti drama queen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti

notbob > wrote in news:c76379FmgtU2
@mid.individual.net:

>>> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese.

My mistake. I meant to say something you will never see in a gyoza
is cheese.

--
Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

Mayo > wrote:

>theszak wrote:
>> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
>> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>>
>Far thinner dough?

The only real difference between ravioli and all other filled sheet
pasta is that ravioli requires two sheets, all the other types require
one sheet that's folded.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:53:11 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/7/2014 6:22 PM, theszak wrote:
>>> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for
>>> Gyoza?... for example at
>>> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html
>>>
>> Far thinner dough?
>>
>> Nope, that's just roll protocol.
>
>When I was in CA, I could get some refrigerated ravioli that was so thin you
>could see the contents within. I loved it because it was pretty low in
>carbs. And amazingly the filling never leaked out.

Like condoms.

On 9/8/2014 4:02 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote in
> :
>
>> Both the Korean Mandoo and the Japanese Gyoza are versions of
>> the Chinese potsticker. Mostly they are filled with beef,
>> pork, chicken and shrimp. Raviolis can have pretty much
>> anything.
>
> Ravioli is already plural. Putting an "s" on it is redundant.

I've suspected as such!

>
> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese. and
> they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker family.
>

You've never seen cheese in ravioli. I've seen plenty. Deep fried
potstickers? You must be eating these things in a bar. I'm guessing
TGIF. :-)

P.S. I won't use "raviolis" if you learn how to use your shift and
spacebar keys. :-)

Michel Boucher wrote:

>Helpful person > wrote in
:
>
>>> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese.

What's a "raviolo"... a *** potsticker?
I know that one thing you'll never find in the oriental version is
cheese.

>>> and they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker
>>> family.
>>>
>> That's a bit picky, especially as you don't know how
>> potstickers are cooked. They are not deep fried, but pan
>> fried till they stick to the pan. Then they are released with
>> liquid, usually broth.
>
>However, some dumplings inthe potsticker family ARE deep fried. My
>comment stands.

Cooked either way is legal... like the difference between a spring
roll and an eggroll.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:01:12 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 07:27:13 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:02:06 AM UTC-4, Michel Boucher wrote:
>>>
>>> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese. and
>>> they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker family.
>>>
>> That's a bit picky, especially as you don't know how potstickers are
>> cooked. They are not deep fried, but pan fried till they stick to the
>> pan. Then they are released with liquid, usually broth.
>
>You would never add (more) liquid to the pan once the potstickers are
>crispy on the bottom. You either scrape them off with a thin metal
>spatula, or - since the advent of Teflon - use a non-stick pan (in
>which case some scraping may still be required).
>
>-sw

Every Chinese restaurant I've been to deep fries... I've never seen
teflon used in any Chinese restaurant, they wouldn't be in business
long using teflon coated woks. In US Chinese restaurants
deep fried wontons are a very common side dish... cooked exactly the
same as eggrolls. Where I lived on Lung Guyland the population was
quickly changing to Caribbean, the best Jamaican patties
(deep fried rather than baked) were made at Chinese take outs, jerk
chicken too... those Chinese cooks made a sauce hotter than any sauce
you ever poured from a bottle. When asked for "hot" they'd grin, nod,
and say speecy, speecy, speecy... the sauce they concocted was like
comparing your lighter fluid bottled sauce to rocket fuel.

dsi1 > wrote in
:

> P.S. I won't use "raviolis" if you learn how to use your shift
> and spacebar keys. :-)

I use two keyboards (US English and French (Canada) ) and have to
shift between them...sometimes I don't bother.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

Swertz > wrote in
:

> No, you really meant to say raviolo and are just back peddling
> again. Stick to the OT troll threads like you usually do,
> since you don't know jack shit about cuisine.

Ha! YOU are the one who weaseled his way out of my plonk file, so
that makes YOU the troll.

*plonk*

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On Monday, September 8, 2014 8:00:41 AM UTC-10, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:01:12 -0500, Sqwertz >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 07:27:13 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:02:06 AM UTC-4, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> However, one thing you will never see in a raviolo is cheese. and
>
> >>> they are boiled, not deep fried like the potsticker family.
>
> >>>
>
> >> That's a bit picky, especially as you don't know how potstickers are
>
> >> cooked. They are not deep fried, but pan fried till they stick to the
>
> >> pan. Then they are released with liquid, usually broth.
>
> >
>
> >You would never add (more) liquid to the pan once the potstickers are
>
> >crispy on the bottom. You either scrape them off with a thin metal
>
> >spatula, or - since the advent of Teflon - use a non-stick pan (in
>
> >which case some scraping may still be required).
>
> >
>
> >-sw
>
>
>
> Every Chinese restaurant I've been to deep fries... I've never seen
>
> teflon used in any Chinese restaurant, they wouldn't be in business
>
> long using teflon coated woks. In US Chinese restaurants
>
> deep fried wontons are a very common side dish... cooked exactly the
>
> same as eggrolls. Where I lived on Lung Guyland the population was
>
> quickly changing to Caribbean, the best Jamaican patties
>
> (deep fried rather than baked) were made at Chinese take outs, jerk
>
> chicken too... those Chinese cooks made a sauce hotter than any sauce
>
> you ever poured from a bottle. When asked for "hot" they'd grin, nod,
>
> and say speecy, speecy, speecy... the sauce they concocted was like
>
> comparing your lighter fluid bottled sauce to rocket fuel.

This explains why a North American person would think that gyozas are deep fried. We call that stuff crispy gau gee which is redundant because I've never seen gau gee prepaired any other way than deep fried. I love that stuff and the kids love it too. Crispy won ton is not redundant because won tons can be prepaired in many ways.

On Monday, September 8, 2014 8:25:47 AM UTC-10, Michel Boucher wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote in
>
> :
>
>
>
> > P.S. I won't use "raviolis" if you learn how to use your shift
>
> > and spacebar keys. :-)
>
>
>
> I use two keyboards (US English and French (Canada) ) and have to
>
> shift between them...sometimes I don't bother.
>

But... but... proper spelling and punction is important, right?

>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Socialism never took root in America because the
>
> poor there see themselves not as an exploited
>
> proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
>
> millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On 2014-09-08 2:28 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> Swertz > wrote in
> :
>
>> No, you really meant to say raviolo and are just back peddling
>> again. Stick to the OT troll threads like you usually do,
>> since you don't know jack shit about cuisine.
>
> Ha! YOU are the one who weaseled his way out of my plonk file, so
> that makes YOU the troll.
>
> *plonk*
>


Sad isn't it. A person is really throwing in the towel and admitting was
a sad, sad lower when he has to keep nymshifting to be heard because he
knows the people he intent on annoying have him filtered.

dsi1 > wrote in news:9490e533-eadd-4f8f-bc3c-
:

> But... but... proper spelling and punction is important, right?

For you, yes. You obviously feel you need to be careful, but this
is more like a conversation and not a formal essay.

Do you punct as you speak?

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On Monday, September 8, 2014 9:41:03 AM UTC-10, Michel Boucher wrote:
> dsi1 wrote in news:9490e533-eadd-4f8f-bc3c-
>
> :
>
>
>
> > But... but... proper spelling and punction is important, right?
>
>
>
> For you, yes. You obviously feel you need to be careful, but this
>
> is more like a conversation and not a formal essay.
>

Thanks for clarification. I thought you were some kind of spelling/style netcop since you brought up the matter of my inadequate spelling/usage. You best get used to it. :-)

>
>
> Do you punct as you speak?
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Socialism never took root in America because the
>
> poor there see themselves not as an exploited
>
> proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
>
> millionaires. - John Steinbeck

dsi1 > wrote in
:

> Thanks for clarification. I thought you were some kind of
> spelling/style netcop since you brought up the matter of my
> inadequate spelling/usage. You best get used to it. :-)

I think it's important when people quote something that they make
some effort to make sure it is correct. The Internet is there to
help you find the correct term. There is no excuse for getting
those things wrong.

There have been a number of "foreign" recipe names and ingredients
here which have been misspelled, all of which makes searching and
identification practically pointless.

And I do like punctuation, and I use it, but I don't insist others
do unless it creates confusion, as in the famous case of Eats
Shoots and Leaves / Eats, Shoots and Leaves. The second has
completely different meaning from the first.

Hint: One is a koala, the other is a gunslinger.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:40:53 PM UTC+10, sf wrote:
>
> I didn't read his comment and the comparison is far from unambiguous.
> If you're trying to say it was on a Bahston Chinese menu, I had no
> idea the general public was so clueless in this day and age.

I'd not seen "ravioli" used for guotie/potstickers before. But I looked at the menu linked in the OP, and there it was.

I didn't look at their address before, but it's Bostonian enough: "Cambridge, MA".

On Monday, September 8, 2014 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Michel Boucher wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote in
>
> And I do like punctuation, and I use it, but I don't insist others
> do unless it creates confusion, as in the famous case of Eats
> Shoots and Leaves / Eats, Shoots and Leaves. The second has
> completely different meaning from the first.
>
> Hint: One is a koala, the other is a gunslinger.
>
Why the capitalization? Surely not correct.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Monday, September 8, 2014 10:15:44 AM UTC-10, Michel Boucher wrote:
> dsi1 <> wrote in
>
> :
>
>
>
> > Thanks for clarification. I thought you were some kind of
>
> > spelling/style netcop since you brought up the matter of my
>
> > inadequate spelling/usage. You best get used to it. :-)
>
>
>
> I think it's important when people quote something that they make
>
> some effort to make sure it is correct. The Internet is there to
>
> help you find the correct term. There is no excuse for getting
>
> those things wrong.
>
>
>
> There have been a number of "foreign" recipe names and ingredients
>
> here which have been misspelled, all of which makes searching and
>
> identification practically pointless.
>
>
>
> And I do like punctuation, and I use it, but I don't insist others
>
> do unless it creates confusion, as in the famous case of Eats
>
> Shoots and Leaves / Eats, Shoots and Leaves. The second has
>
> completely different meaning from the first.
>
>
>
> Hint: One is a koala, the other is a gunslinger.
>
>

I have heard of this famous book. The author would undoubtedly be turning in her grave if she saw the things that go on in Usenet. Of course, being still alive puts the kabosh on that occurring.
>
> --
>
>
>
> Socialism never took root in America because the
>
> poor there see themselves not as an exploited
>
> proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
>
> millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Monday, September 8, 2014 8:25:47 AM UTC-10, Michel Boucher wrote:
>> dsi1 > wrote in
>>
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > P.S. I won't use "raviolis" if you learn how to use your shift
>>
>> > and spacebar keys. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I use two keyboards (US English and French (Canada) ) and have to
>>
>> shift between them...sometimes I don't bother.
>>
>
>But... but... proper spelling and punction is important, right?

Shouldn't that be punktion?

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:22:27 PM UTC-10, theszak wrote:
> What's the difference between the ingredients for Ravioli and for Gyoza?... for example at
>
> http://www.beijingtokyomit.com/chinese_menu.html

I'm just glad that, in this day and age, ravioli and kim chee can coexist harmoniously on the same menu. It's all good.