Their chicken is shitty.

Their chicken is tender and juicy. You know whose isn'? Bolton's. So if by the above statement you mean "the chicken meat that they use is low quality," that's simply not true.

If you mean the chicken overall, then you're just restating the above person's conclusion, not explaining why.

Has bad heat and too much brown sugar in the rub.

What exactly is "bad heat"? The fact that they have a mild that is actually mild does not make the heat levels of the rest of their chicken "bad." Considering that Hattie's higher levels meet and exceed Prince's lower levels, your argument that Hattie's heat level is "bad" only makes sense if you genuinely think that the epitome of hot chicken is acid reflux inducing garbage that leaves you with hellfire mud butt for a week. If you think that kind of tourist bait is the ideal hot chicken, I think you're dead wrong. Hot chicken is at heart soul food, not a contest to see who has the highest spice tolerance.

So if you don't mean that, then what does "bad heat" mean?

Too much brown sugar in the rub might be a valid criticism, but I don't think it's fair to call chicken "shitty" just because it is slightly sweeter than your own personal preference.

I know you have an axe to grind against Hattie B's because you think it's "gentrified hot chicken" and you're upset that an out-of-state company came to Nashville and ate up the market share that the original Prince's had a right too. You've posted as much before. And that's fine. Feel that way all you like. But it doesn't make their chicken shitty.

It's also terribly overhyped and there's no way in hell I'm standing in like for chicken that bad.

Not relevant. (Frankly, the above applies to Prince's too.)