What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 94: Reader Edition

I am proud to say that readers of The Gate continue to keep sending photographs to me; and the following photograph was taken by a relative of a reader of The Gate — who wishes to remain anonymous — recently from a restaurant in New Jersey.

Source: Anonymous reader of The Gate.

What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 94: Reader Edition

For this edition of this popular game, can you guess what you believe is wrong — or, at least, seemingly quite bizarre — with this photograph?

Please submit your answers in the Comments section below — and I enjoy reading creative answers.

Thank you in advance. As always, I cannot wait to read your answer and feedback.

Access to Past Articles in the What is Wrong With This Photograph? Series

You can refer to this definitive list of past articles of the What is Wrong With This Photograph? series of articles — which also includes articles which reveal the answers — and that list will be continuously updated as additional articles are written and posted here at The Gate. This is to ensure that future articles in this series are not encumbered with a long list of links — especially when viewing and reading them from a portable electronic device.

This will hopefully be considered a positive step towards the reading experience of The Gate on portable electronic devices. Your constructive input as a reader of The Gate is always appreciated.

Summary

You are encouraged to submit photographs of your own for this feature at The Gate. When you do, please let me know if you want to have photography credit attributed to you — as well as what is the photograph; and when and where it was taken. If your photograph is selected, it will be featured in a future article here at The Gate.

In the meantime, the answer — or answers — to this article will be included in the next article of answers to the most recent five articles in the series of What is Wrong With This Photograph? articles.

Source: Anonymous reader of The Gate.

6 thoughts on “What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 94: Reader Edition”

  1. ASan says:

    I suppose the place is meant for a single customer…Hannibal Lecter?

  2. derek says:

    The meaning of the sign is unclear. Is this McDonald’s in Papua New Guinea where McCanabalism is served? (Table for eating customers only. There is another table for eating chicken).

    It could mean that the table is for paying customers only, not their friends who are not ordering and not for non-customers (who presumably are not paying customers).

    An unlikely meaning would be that the tables are for eating. Customers can do anything, shoot up drugs, have rough sex, do homework, anything except loitering (“only no loitering”).

  3. derek says:

    Sorry, McDonalds, for the spelling error. It’s McCannibalism.

  4. Cwyfan says:

    It could just be a typo of seating!

  5. Thomas Potter says:

    So we can only use the tables if we are eating customers? And If we do does that make us customers as well and at risk of being eaten too?

  6. Well, who would loiter at a table that eats customers?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BoardingArea