SMI, Honest...I don't think he is lying. Just that he fails to understand the enormity of Gounder's influence.
I have met people who disagreed with me when I said I saw a lot of Gounder in Santhanam - they said I was saying so because I was a Gounder fan

A complete an utter disregard for conventions, people and institutions is a characteristic of Gounder. He broke all kinds of limits of propriety and I'd go so far as saying, he even influenced a way of thinking, an attitude - of several of us. Just think of the template "aamaam, ivaru periya..".

Can any of us say that/ think that without thinking of Gounder? But over time it has become an approach absorbed into our general psyche.Cynicism, nakkal ellAm podhuvA namma oorla increase aanadhukku kaaraNamE Gounder dhaan...appadinnu solla aasaiyA irukku. yaaraavadhu sociology maaNavargaL idhai oru aaivaa eduththu seyyalaam.

Santhanam's universal nakkal, generous distribution of epithets - is something we see a lot of Gounder in. But in terms of delivery, modulation and expression (lack thereof!) he thinks he is carved out something for himself distinct from that of Gounder - and he has a point there.

So he is right in getting irritated. It is not that he is merely doing a mimicry of Gounder. Just that he is unable to recognize Gounder as the source of the whole type of comedy. Isn't the irreverence of Lollu Sabha itself something we see a lot of Gounder in?

Gounder makes fun of Senthil only it seems - andha aLavukku dhaan purinjikittu irukkaan