"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.

> USE YOUR BRAIN WHEN READING A RECIPE!

I do.