As long as I am logged on, wasting valuble work time, as we all are at this time of day, it seems to me that the only offensive part of truncated post titles is that we don't really know what the subject is. As a result, we need to take a few seconds to read the opening post rather than skip it entirely.
So, let me get this straight......we object to this thread title because its wasting our time while we are wasting our time?
To answer Pat Mucci's truncated title in another thread, isn't that the real "modern disconnect?"
BTW, I can't think of a single question, but I think the gca should drink single malts! And, I think the question might be different from the buff to the actual gca.
Certainly, having played several to most of the variously listed top 100's doesn't qualify - many people come away without really looking at the gca, but are famous course round collectors focusing on that or the overall experience.
I would think a buff could be asked about which gca books written by actual architects he has read to flesh out design philosophy. (I discount second hand writings like those of Geoff S, which, while good, and possibly capable of providing analysis beyond the original, aren't as good IMHO as "original source" writings of the actual gca's) Also, the original books are usually harder to find, indicating interest, if not knowledge.
Then, if he could quote a few basics from those, at least we know he is interested. One of the problems with a single question approach is anyone might fool you with a sound bite, well rehearsed. Another is that you are judging them by your own bias, no?
I think a gca should be judged almost exclusively on his/her projects - either his best or then in the context of what the lesser projects were trying to accomplish.