Poor Phil's alive and kicking

Opinion: Editorials

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

By Editorial

Proud to say we knew Poor Phil's Dennis Murphy 30 and more years ago when he was a young buck slinging great cheeseburgers at Murphys-Off-the-Mall on Marion Street. The serial entrepreneur has reinvented himself a number of times since then — Kettlestring's, Philander's, and now Poor Phil's.

How has he been so successful? Well, for one thing, when trouble comes, he doesn't just sit back and take it. For instance, the street in front of Poor Phil's is currently in some disarray. We learned this from reading his ads in Wednesday Journal. The first inkling was the headline "Da hoes is comin'!" And now comes "Kiss my asphalt goodbye."

Then there are the construction vests his servers are currently sporting.

The point is that Marion Street is under construction for several months. A lot of retailers get glum or worse. Not Dennis Murphy. Have fun. Call attention to yourself. It's good business. And, of course, Dennis couldn't resist.

Reader Comments

56 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Facebook Verified  

Posted: June 30th, 2011 10:06 AM

coughlin has a history of one line name calling responses. Regardless of who started it, it doesnt give anyone the right to continue it. Especially after coughlin preaches to everyone else on how we are to conduct ourselves on this forum. More comedy


Posted: June 30th, 2011 12:07 AM

Hudson started with the name calling and personal insults actual... Irony strikes once again with Hudson crying about name calling. Ha.

Facebook Verified  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 11:08 PM

coughlin, You resort to name calling when people dont see things your way. So sad. It must be everyone else but you.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix. AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 10:37 PM

Please, stop, you're killing me.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 8:29 PM

Hurry outside! There's a fresh bucket of slop in your pen.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 7:56 PM

Oh, come on, you can do better than that. Well, maybe not. When confronted with the illogic of your arguments always resort to name calling. It'll enhance your reputation with the "kids in the club," but not to anyone who enjoys a vigorous back and forth. Cross the line again and I'll be there, count on it.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 7:45 PM


Jerry Hudson from Phoenix. AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 7:42 PM

"Get lost?" Does that mean we aren't friends anymore? LOL. You're a guy who obviously dish it out but not take it. You're a poseur who's anxious for us to know about his "expertise" into the "hellish" lives lived by prostitutes but does't like to be called out when his credentials are questioned. As I say, keep your sensitive "life experiences" to yourself, and nobody will mention them. But when you wave them around as a way to win an argument then. . .

Another OP resident from Oak Park  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 6:58 PM

Hey, all - "HOE" made Shrubtown this week!

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 6:37 PM

Facts are important, Jerry. Never once did I use the word "apology" in any of my posts. Dennis Murphy does not have to apologize or explain himself. It's perfectly clear where he and you stand regarding whether or not the copy in his ad was in poor taste. Also, you asked me to explain how I was qualified to speak on the subject of prostitution. Too many of the comments you've directed at me have been disrepectful and combative. There's no point in continuing this back and forth. Get lost!

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 5:44 PM

Ahhh, Tracy Morgan. So that's the "apology" you've referred to over and over again. No reasonable person can conclude any of my remarks were intended to stop anyone from saying anything about anything. I'm guessing Tracy Morgan decided to apologize for his remarks when he realized he was putting his gig on a hit network TV show in jeopardy. It was a business decision, not based on some "come to Jesus" moment.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 5:38 PM

I don't know or care anything about your "life experince" with prostitution. It was you who brought it up as a sort of credential, to defend your blowhard lectures on the evils of the sex trade (without, of course, being specific). So I would suggest you be a little more circumspect about bringing it up in a public forum.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 5:35 PM

Thanks,J.G. I'm sure the Wednesday Journal appreciates the spirited debate on this subject. We're probably generating a lot traffic and even hearing from folks who live out of town. This does seem to have run it's course. Jerry and I will have to find something else to discuss.


Posted: June 29th, 2011 5:26 PM

@Hudson- The obvious is that you've been doing the same thing you're accusing Coughlin of doing lol. But it's really between the two of you, so... continue on.


Posted: June 29th, 2011 5:23 PM

Actually Coughlin, if anything at all I was defending you. My reply was to Hudson and this continued criticism of your perspective. It's ironic that he wants to defend Murphy's right to say what he wants while criticizing you... post after post... for having your own perspective. I agree that you're a little enthusiastic lol, but he can't fault you when he's doing the same. It's all just very weird. @AL-Is the ad to attract attention or business? The two aren't one in the same.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 5:16 PM

Jerry, Are you aware of with the controversy involving Tracy Morgan? He's taken a lot of heat for "jokes" he made about having a gay son and mentally disabled children. Obviously, he has the right to speak his mind as do people who find his "clever use of words" offensive. Was it appropriate for them to call Tracy Morgan out? Finally, I'll ask you to refrain from questioning my life experience as it relates to prostitution. This is not information I wish to share or discuss on this forum.

AL from Oak Park  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 4:42 PM

Clearly the ads are working. Poor Phil's is still kicking butt during the construction on Marion. There are 39 comments on this board, from about 4 people. Looks like no one but you guys think the ads are offensive otherwise there would be more outrage. I like the ads.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 4:19 PM

It's good to see you walking back from your PC arguments about people being "offended." What set me off was the deliberately over the top rhetoric you employed. Sermonettes about the lives of women sold into sexual slavery (and your secret knowledge of how bad their lives are)and attempting to connect that language with a guy running a bar in Oak Park is, at a minimum, grossly unfair. And making such a big deal about Murphy tends to undercut real concerns about this problem IMHO.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 3:57 PM

This was never a First Amendment issue, Jerry. Stay focused. Even folks who thought the ad was in poor taste never said that Dennis Murphy and the Wednesday Journal did not have the right to print his ads. It's his money and we live in a free country. Just don't confuse Dennis Murphy with George Carlin and Lenny Bruce.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 3:50 PM

Coughlin, it's nice to see you coming to your senses. I guess all of those hypotheticals about "what would happen if (fill in your favorite minority) were offended by Murphy's advertising" are moot. You have engaged in the most hyperbolic language for the most trivial "crime." Nothing Murphy has said or done will affect the decision by a south side crack ho to pimp out her children for another fix. Nothing. Your outrage and concern is hugely selecetive, given our popular culture.

Facebook Verified  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 3:49 PM

The never ending id*&^c questions...with known answers. It never ends.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 3:39 PM

Morales, you've got a firm grasp of the obvious. I'm gratified that my First Amendment tutorials have evidently had an impact.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 3:30 PM

Geez, J.G. -That's pretty harsh! "100 posts of nonsense". I not your opponent. The forum welcomes people to post comments and offer opinions. We can agree to disagree without being diagreeable. It appears that you are frustrated and annoyed that I continue to ask questions. That was not my intention. I think you may want to direct your complaint to the WJ staff and request that they remove my posts and block any future postings. That would certainly shut me up!


Posted: June 29th, 2011 2:58 PM

Well tough? Yeah... for you, and for Murphy. He has a right to say what he wants, I'm free not to like it and to say so. Just as you have been "expressing yourself" over your last 100 posts of nonsense... regarding what YOU dislike. The end result? People don't like what you have to say, and they're free to go elsewhere. Similarly, I won't be spending any of my dough at Poor Phil's... You can't force someone to like something, nor can you change their reasons for disliking something. Absurd...

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 1:45 PM

My question was directed to the editor of the Wednesday Journal. Dan Haley does not have to explain the paper's policies or defend his friend but I thought it would be interesting to learn if any "line" exists for print ads. Criticism of the copy in Dennis Murphy's ad should not be intrepreted as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech. I thought his "clever use of words" was in bad taste and expressed an opinion.That got me tagged by some as a crusader and public censor. Not the case.

Facebook Verified  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 1:15 PM

coughlin, So are you trying to bring down the Award winning WJ too? The sex industry is a multi "B" illion dollar industry. Sex is fun and should be legalized among consenting adults. Theres your tax dollars.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 11:08 AM

I'll ask the question again. Would the Wednesday Journal hesitate to print or reject an ad that featured a "clever play on words" at the expense of people of color, the disabled,homeless vets, adopted children,the LGBT community,etc.,.? Is there a line that cannot be crossed? Has the newspaper ever refused to print an ad?

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 1:15 AM

Public apology? Public Consequences? Murphy is laughing all the way to the bank. This blog has brought all sorts of new business to his bar. Public Image is not a mission of Poor Phil's! Selling beer is!

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 11:44 PM

Those "pubic apologies" you're so fond of referring to are not constitutionally required. It's amazing to me any adult wouldn't recognize the distinction between chosing to apologize for something you've said or written and being required to do so. Maybe in Islamic countries, where saying the "wrong thing" can put your life in jeopardy. It's nice to see we can agree that Murphy has the right to say what he wants and that he has to accept the business consequequences.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 11:37 PM

When she was doing her best to embarrass the state of Illinois in the Senate, Carol Moseley Braun adduced what she called "a right not to be offended." It should be clear to anyone with a room temperature IQ that you can have "a right not to be offended" or a First Amendment, but not both. And that's the heart of the PC argument you and Coughlin have been making--somebody might be offended. Well, tough. And attempting to link Murphy to sexual slavery, etc is a monumental cheap shot.

Facebook Verified  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 11:21 PM

I'd say the marketing worked. Good bad or indifferent. Attention was given.


Posted: June 28th, 2011 11:04 PM

I didn't call anyone any names. I don't have any conspiracy theories either. You can do as you will. I just don't get how Coughlin's perspective put your panties in a bunch. They've been tangled up for days now. Are you waiting for a winner to be declared? "Too many" would be demonstrated by the public apologies others have made. Murphy can say what he wants, but that doesn't make it tasteful or respectful. And... that's pretty much the point...

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix. AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 10:32 PM

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that "Reverand" Fred Phelps is protected by the First Amendment. The depth and breadth of ignorance on this subject is truly breath taking. From timt to time ignorant souls take offense at "Huckleberry Finn" and it's frequent use of the "N-word," proclaiming themselves offended and demanding that the book be banned. I'm guessing Coughlin and Morales would be right there, demanding that this "insulting" book be eliminated. Censorship is censorship.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 10:17 PM

Coughlin, perhaps you and Morales would like to team up as some sort of Oak Park speech regulators. That way you could assure yourself that no one would ever utter a "discouraging word." You and the other kids have called me names, suggested I'm part of some grand conspiracy, and you have suggested some special knowledge of the plight of women (no credentials provided)which means I'm disagreeing with a self proclaimed expert. Bunk.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 10:10 PM

Hey, Morales, who get's to decide who's "taking too many liberties with free speech?" You? You PC types give all sorts of lip service to respecting the other guy's right to disagree with you. But you're always so surprised when anybody does. And your cheesy conspiracy theories don't pass the laugh test. Is that all you've got? Name calling and conspiracy allegations?Very weak, my friend, very weak.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 12:27 PM

Would the Wednesday Journal hesitate to print or reject an ad that featured a "clever play on words" at the expense of people of color, the disabled, homeless vets, adopted children, the LGBT community, etc.,.? Is there a line that cannot be crossed? Has the newspaper ever refused to print an ad?

Violet Aura  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 10:13 AM

Hey, I have got a great way of zinging Dennis for his not-so-covert sexism and racism: "Hey Denny, I saw your sign. So when IS your mama arriving?" LOL

Facebook Verified  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 9:51 AM

Is it possible that people have met at PP and then proceeded to get a room at the hotel next door?


Posted: June 28th, 2011 9:18 AM

I'm speaking freely, so is Murphy, Coughlin, and YOU. What do YOU hope to gain from all of this back and forth? Maybe Coughlin has had some experience with forced prostitution with a relative or friend. Maybe there's some other reason you don't understand... just as I can't see any possible benefit in what you're doing. You never know. Fact is the ad is sexist, tasteless, insensitive, and even racist now that I think about it. Shouldn't our loviedovie racial harmony towns folk be more sensitive?


Posted: June 28th, 2011 9:07 AM

Free speech may exist, but how many people in the media spot light have had to apologize for taking too many liberties with this particular freedom when found insensitive and demeaning by others? Maybe Mr. Coughlin is quite persistent about this, but at least I can see his point. From my perspective Mr. Hudson, you either know the owner or you're just trolling.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 3:11 AM

Let's see, you're the wannabe Sherlock Holmes who last week concluded I was a "carpetbagger" because I referred to it as Oak Park HS. Proof positive that a little knowledge can be more than a dangerous thing. In the right hands, it can become a lethal weapon. Evidently I've upset the feng shui around here. I don't know the secret handshake or the password. My sin, evidently, is pointing out Coughlin's over wrought and unfair language. Sorry boys.

epic lulz  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 2:42 AM

No big surprise that an editor who sees a black kid giving the peace sign and thinks "gangbanger" is also supporting Mr. Murphy's racist and sexist ad campaign. Also no big surprise that said editor keeps deleting any comment that directly takes on the racist and sexist Mr. Murphy or his sock-puppet, Mr. Hudson. I expect to see this comment likewise deleted in due course.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 28th, 2011 12:27 AM

I'd suggest you reread your ponderous, sermons about the evils of sexual abuse and you're repeated efforts to tie them to Murphy. Earlier you said you were going to police other advertising for evidence of lack of concern for abused women. So far, you've only identified one, which leads me to conclude your crusade is personal. Last week you suggested my interest in this matter was "fishy," now you're suggesting there must be some personal reason for standing up to your bullying. Pathetic.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 11:59 PM

What smears and abuse are you yapping about, Jerry? Dennis Murphy's refers to himself as a saloonkeeper. That's a guy selling booze. He described his ad as a "clever play on words". I said they were insensitive and tasteless. Someone else posted a comment that the ad was "racist and sexist". I agreed. As has been explained previously, there are no other ads that cross this particular line like Murphy's. That would be bad business. I still wonder why you care so much? What's Dennis Murphy to you?

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 11:32 PM

I asked you to give other examples of this crusade against advertising that doesn't meet your standards of concern for victims of sexual abuse. Is Murphy the only one you've singled out for smears and abuse? Or are there others? You've made your point of view clear, repeatedly. My objection is this false connection you've labored strenuously to create between advertising for a bar in Oak Park and this world wide problem. It's over the top, unfair and illogical.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 11:26 PM

Your words, Jerry. Not mine. You asked me to identify things that would represent a personal crusade. That's a list. Back to the question. All I have done in response to Dennis Murphy's ad campaign is post my opinion on this forum. We've never met socially though I've him seen around town. It's not my business how he spends his ad dollars. I'm just objecting to Murphy's tasteless "play on words" and was not alone in saying so. You seem all riled up today. Why do you care? What's he to you?

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 11:11 PM

I can understand how you'd want to change the subject, you and "logic" need to establish a closer relationship.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 11:09 PM

Only 500 key strokes. Let's see: Open Enrollment in Medicare; Collective Bargaining Rights; Campaign Finance Reform; Gun Control; Reproductive Rights; Marriage Equality; Nationalization of the Oil Industry; Arts in School; Legalization of Drugs; Evolution; Improving our Infrastructure; Wall St. Reforms; Studs Terkel; John Prine; Affordable Housing; Aid to Veterans; Books over Bullets; Full Employment; O. Henry; The Living Wage Ordinance; Voter Rights;. I'm "cogs" on Huff Post. Now you, Jerry.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 10:19 PM

Any fair minded person would recognize that you quoted me out of context and dishonestly. When I referred to bogus nonsense about abused women I was referring to you, and your smears. And attaching any other meaning to my words shows how desperate, dishonest and foolish you are.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 10:12 PM

Coughlin, you really should look up the difference between correlation and causation. No one disputes the wretched lives lived by some women in sexual servitude, and you know it. Since you've appointed yourself Torquemada to oppose advertising that in your view doesn't take this matter seriously enough, perhaps you'd be good enough to give us some examples of your crusading. Or is it just Murphy that's got you're knickers in a twist? And, if so, why continue with this campaign of dishonesty?

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 10:02 PM

"Bogus nonsense about abused women". Your words, Jerry. I guess my life experience is very different from yours. The fact is that young girls find themselves trapped in a real nightmare. They are threatened with violence, forced to use drugs and surrender their dignity. It is truly a hellish existence. I understand that you, Dennis Murphy and even the Wednesday Journal editorial staff think this is good fun. But it is no laughing matter to me. My opinion has not changed despite your false claim.


Posted: June 27th, 2011 9:38 PM

I think Jerry is lonely.

Jerrry Hudson from Phoenix. AZ  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 9:10 PM

You sir, are advancing a dishonest argument and you admitted it in our last exchange. Obviously you're comfortable doing it and I would be the last person to suggest you not be able to do so. But you shouldn't expect to be able to peddle that blather without someone standing up to you. I gather you cosider yourself the alpha poster around here, and are used to having your emanations treated like gold. Well, it's a new day as long as you continue to be so blatantly dishonest.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 8:54 PM

It's you again, Jerry! I intend to speak out against any ad campaign that mocks the plight of abused and exploited women. As I explained to you, it's not my place to call for a boycott of Dennis Murphy's bar. That's up to the individual. Why would you want to deny me the right to express my opinion? Don't worry about me being embarrassed regarding this issue. The hellish lives this women is no laughing matter. You and Dennis can giggle at their expense but expect blowback every time.

Jerry Hudson from Phoenix, AZ  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 8:42 PM

Coughlin, you showed last week this argument of yours is a red herring. For some reason or another you don't like Murphy and his place and you've been advancing this bogus nonsense about abused women. And you've failed to answer a question I've put to you several times: once you've exhausted the various methods of persuasion to keep people from his place, what comes next? The answer, in a country with a First Amendment, is nothing. Why don't you give it up? You're embarrassing yourself.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 27th, 2011 5:38 PM

Murphy's ad campaign is sexist and racist. He mocks the hellish lives of abused and exploited women.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad