I was trying to think of a analogy for the whole burnt ends controversy, and the first thing that popped in my head was the "Debris" sandwich from Mothers restaurant in New Orleans.
The Debris sandwich from Mothers is basically the small pieces of roast that fall off into the drippings when they are roasting beef. They started adding these pieces of roast to their sandwiches, along with the drippings, and more and more people started asking for it. Before long they had the now famous "Debris" sandwich.
Now what if I came along, and said I am going to make my own Debris sandwich, but instead of doing it Mothers way, I just chop some roast beef up into small chunks and mix in some au jus. It may taste like a Debris sandwich, it may even taste better than a Debris sandwich, but is it really a Debris sandwich?
I think this is the basis of Popdaddy's whole argument. By simulating the taste and texture of a burnt end by chopping and saucing the point and re-cooking, are they really burnt ends? If I simulated a Debris sandwich by chopping up roast beef and adding au jus, is it really a Debris sandwich? It may be "inspired" by a Debris sandwich, but I should probably call it something else. Maybe "Saiko's Succulent Sandwich, inspired by Debris".