Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for “negates”? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowPositive euphemisms for desert?Positive alternative to “ominous”A positive alternative to 'harp'What's the word for “too many but not good enough”?What is the meaning of: “If we offend, it is with our good will”Is there a more positive alternative to the word “inevitability”?“within the context” of a workshop - synonymsNicer word for inquisitorA more positive word for “co-conspirator”?Isn't there a simple adverb for the opposite of 'loudly'?

My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?

Is the 21st century's idea of "freedom of speech" based on precedent?

What difference does it make matching a word with/without a trailing whitespace?

Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

How does a dynamic QR code work?

What did the word "leisure" mean in late 18th Century usage?

My boss doesn't want me to have a side project

What is the difference between 'contrib' and 'non-free' packages repositories?

How should I connect my cat5 cable to connectors having an orange-green line?

Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the 90s code?

Is a linearly independent set whose span is dense a Schauder basis?

How did scripture get the name bible?

Can a PhD from a non-TU9 German university become a professor in a TU9 university?

Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico

Can I hook these wires up to find the connection to a dead outlet?

What happens if you break a law in another country outside of that country?

pgfplots: How to draw a tangent graph below two others?

Do I need to write [sic] when including a quotation with a number less than 10 that isn't written out?

Why did the Drakh emissary look so blurred in S04:E11 "Lines of Communication"?

Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation

Does Germany produce more waste than the US?



Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for “negates”?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowPositive euphemisms for desert?Positive alternative to “ominous”A positive alternative to 'harp'What's the word for “too many but not good enough”?What is the meaning of: “If we offend, it is with our good will”Is there a more positive alternative to the word “inevitability”?“within the context” of a workshop - synonymsNicer word for inquisitorA more positive word for “co-conspirator”?Isn't there a simple adverb for the opposite of 'loudly'?










8















I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    Mar 21 at 17:27






  • 7





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    Mar 21 at 17:37






  • 1





    I don't think negate is even correct in this context. Wiktionary gives as definitions "to deny the existence of", "to cause to be ineffective", "to bring or cause negative results". None of those fits in this sentence. Negate is not a synonym for remove or avoid.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Mar 22 at 0:29






  • 1





    The OED gives "to nullify, cancel out" as a definition for negate; that applies here.

    – chepner
    Mar 22 at 0:54







  • 1





    If your new platform truly removes the need for middlepeople, then they're not going to be happier just because you used a different word. You're not selling your platform to middlepeople, presumably; shouldn't you be more worried that your real customers don't understand you when you use woolly language.

    – Erwin Bolwidt
    Mar 22 at 12:02















8















I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    Mar 21 at 17:27






  • 7





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    Mar 21 at 17:37






  • 1





    I don't think negate is even correct in this context. Wiktionary gives as definitions "to deny the existence of", "to cause to be ineffective", "to bring or cause negative results". None of those fits in this sentence. Negate is not a synonym for remove or avoid.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Mar 22 at 0:29






  • 1





    The OED gives "to nullify, cancel out" as a definition for negate; that applies here.

    – chepner
    Mar 22 at 0:54







  • 1





    If your new platform truly removes the need for middlepeople, then they're not going to be happier just because you used a different word. You're not selling your platform to middlepeople, presumably; shouldn't you be more worried that your real customers don't understand you when you use woolly language.

    – Erwin Bolwidt
    Mar 22 at 12:02













8












8








8








I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?










share|improve this question
















I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?







single-word-requests meaning synonyms euphemisms






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 22 at 4:21









Jasper

816514




816514










asked Mar 21 at 17:21









SkyWalkerSkyWalker

1392




1392







  • 1





    How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    Mar 21 at 17:27






  • 7





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    Mar 21 at 17:37






  • 1





    I don't think negate is even correct in this context. Wiktionary gives as definitions "to deny the existence of", "to cause to be ineffective", "to bring or cause negative results". None of those fits in this sentence. Negate is not a synonym for remove or avoid.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Mar 22 at 0:29






  • 1





    The OED gives "to nullify, cancel out" as a definition for negate; that applies here.

    – chepner
    Mar 22 at 0:54







  • 1





    If your new platform truly removes the need for middlepeople, then they're not going to be happier just because you used a different word. You're not selling your platform to middlepeople, presumably; shouldn't you be more worried that your real customers don't understand you when you use woolly language.

    – Erwin Bolwidt
    Mar 22 at 12:02












  • 1





    How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    Mar 21 at 17:27






  • 7





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    Mar 21 at 17:37






  • 1





    I don't think negate is even correct in this context. Wiktionary gives as definitions "to deny the existence of", "to cause to be ineffective", "to bring or cause negative results". None of those fits in this sentence. Negate is not a synonym for remove or avoid.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Mar 22 at 0:29






  • 1





    The OED gives "to nullify, cancel out" as a definition for negate; that applies here.

    – chepner
    Mar 22 at 0:54







  • 1





    If your new platform truly removes the need for middlepeople, then they're not going to be happier just because you used a different word. You're not selling your platform to middlepeople, presumably; shouldn't you be more worried that your real customers don't understand you when you use woolly language.

    – Erwin Bolwidt
    Mar 22 at 12:02







1




1





How about "offsets"?

– Hot Licks
Mar 21 at 17:27





How about "offsets"?

– Hot Licks
Mar 21 at 17:27




7




7





“Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

– Damila
Mar 21 at 17:37





“Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

– Damila
Mar 21 at 17:37




1




1





I don't think negate is even correct in this context. Wiktionary gives as definitions "to deny the existence of", "to cause to be ineffective", "to bring or cause negative results". None of those fits in this sentence. Negate is not a synonym for remove or avoid.

– Nate Eldredge
Mar 22 at 0:29





I don't think negate is even correct in this context. Wiktionary gives as definitions "to deny the existence of", "to cause to be ineffective", "to bring or cause negative results". None of those fits in this sentence. Negate is not a synonym for remove or avoid.

– Nate Eldredge
Mar 22 at 0:29




1




1





The OED gives "to nullify, cancel out" as a definition for negate; that applies here.

– chepner
Mar 22 at 0:54






The OED gives "to nullify, cancel out" as a definition for negate; that applies here.

– chepner
Mar 22 at 0:54





1




1





If your new platform truly removes the need for middlepeople, then they're not going to be happier just because you used a different word. You're not selling your platform to middlepeople, presumably; shouldn't you be more worried that your real customers don't understand you when you use woolly language.

– Erwin Bolwidt
Mar 22 at 12:02





If your new platform truly removes the need for middlepeople, then they're not going to be happier just because you used a different word. You're not selling your platform to middlepeople, presumably; shouldn't you be more worried that your real customers don't understand you when you use woolly language.

– Erwin Bolwidt
Mar 22 at 12:02










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















9














A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




ODO:




obviate
VERB [WITH OBJECT]
1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

    – Hugh
    Mar 21 at 20:01






  • 1





    The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

    – cobaltduck
    Mar 22 at 11:56











  • This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

    – alwayslearning
    Mar 24 at 18:31



















4














I'd say:
Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
(Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






share|improve this answer


















  • 5





    Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

    – Jim
    Mar 21 at 20:38











  • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

    – Paul S. Lee
    Mar 21 at 20:53











  • @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

    – mcalex
    Mar 22 at 6:50












  • Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

    – ElG
    Mar 26 at 14:13











  • Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

    – ElG
    Mar 26 at 14:22


















4














I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






share|improve this answer






























    0














    For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



    For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



    Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      If you're looking for a positive expression while still using "need", I'd suggest "relieve":




      relieve transitive verb



      1a : to free from a burden : give aid or help to



      2a : to bring about the removal or alleviation of : mitigate




      from Merriam Webster




      our platform relieves the need for a middleman ...







      share|improve this answer






























        0














        Yes, there is. Consider the expression to make something unnecessary. This phrase is very straightforward and hardly requires any explanation as to what it means. So, I'll just use your example to show you how it can be used in a sentence:




        Our platform makes the need for a middleman unnecessary.




        In my opinion, the sentence now does sound a great deal softer than your original version with negates.






        share|improve this answer

























        • I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

          – Mick O'Hea
          Mar 22 at 15:37












        • That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

          – Mike R
          Mar 22 at 17:35











        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "97"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490767%2fis-there-a-nicer-politer-more-positive-alternative-for-negates%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        6 Answers
        6






        active

        oldest

        votes








        6 Answers
        6






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        9














        A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




        our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




        ODO:




        obviate
        VERB [WITH OBJECT]
        1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



        ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







        share|improve this answer


















        • 1





          'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

          – Hugh
          Mar 21 at 20:01






        • 1





          The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

          – cobaltduck
          Mar 22 at 11:56











        • This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

          – alwayslearning
          Mar 24 at 18:31
















        9














        A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




        our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




        ODO:




        obviate
        VERB [WITH OBJECT]
        1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



        ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







        share|improve this answer


















        • 1





          'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

          – Hugh
          Mar 21 at 20:01






        • 1





          The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

          – cobaltduck
          Mar 22 at 11:56











        • This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

          – alwayslearning
          Mar 24 at 18:31














        9












        9








        9







        A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




        our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




        ODO:




        obviate
        VERB [WITH OBJECT]
        1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



        ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







        share|improve this answer













        A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




        our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




        ODO:




        obviate
        VERB [WITH OBJECT]
        1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



        ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 21 at 17:39









        alwayslearningalwayslearning

        26.5k63894




        26.5k63894







        • 1





          'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

          – Hugh
          Mar 21 at 20:01






        • 1





          The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

          – cobaltduck
          Mar 22 at 11:56











        • This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

          – alwayslearning
          Mar 24 at 18:31













        • 1





          'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

          – Hugh
          Mar 21 at 20:01






        • 1





          The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

          – cobaltduck
          Mar 22 at 11:56











        • This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

          – alwayslearning
          Mar 24 at 18:31








        1




        1





        'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

        – Hugh
        Mar 21 at 20:01





        'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

        – Hugh
        Mar 21 at 20:01




        1




        1





        The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

        – cobaltduck
        Mar 22 at 11:56





        The OP states s/he does not want to "offend or upset the middlemen." I have to ask, if one were a middleman, would one be more offended or upset by being negated, or by being obviated? I neither agree nor disagree with this answer, but feel it needs to address this.

        – cobaltduck
        Mar 22 at 11:56













        This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

        – alwayslearning
        Mar 24 at 18:31






        This answer is about a nicer/politer/more positive alternative (as per the title) and to replace "negate" with something more reasonable (as per the body of the question). Obviate is a relatively impersonal (and formal) term and it just helps like saying (perhaps) your presence is no longer needed instead of something like get the hell out of here.

        – alwayslearning
        Mar 24 at 18:31














        4














        I'd say:
        Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
        (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






        share|improve this answer


















        • 5





          Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

          – Jim
          Mar 21 at 20:38











        • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

          – Paul S. Lee
          Mar 21 at 20:53











        • @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

          – mcalex
          Mar 22 at 6:50












        • Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:13











        • Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:22















        4














        I'd say:
        Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
        (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






        share|improve this answer


















        • 5





          Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

          – Jim
          Mar 21 at 20:38











        • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

          – Paul S. Lee
          Mar 21 at 20:53











        • @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

          – mcalex
          Mar 22 at 6:50












        • Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:13











        • Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:22













        4












        4








        4







        I'd say:
        Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
        (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






        share|improve this answer













        I'd say:
        Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
        (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 21 at 17:28









        ElGElG

        723




        723







        • 5





          Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

          – Jim
          Mar 21 at 20:38











        • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

          – Paul S. Lee
          Mar 21 at 20:53











        • @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

          – mcalex
          Mar 22 at 6:50












        • Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:13











        • Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:22












        • 5





          Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

          – Jim
          Mar 21 at 20:38











        • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

          – Paul S. Lee
          Mar 21 at 20:53











        • @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

          – mcalex
          Mar 22 at 6:50












        • Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:13











        • Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

          – ElG
          Mar 26 at 14:22







        5




        5





        Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

        – Jim
        Mar 21 at 20:38





        Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

        – Jim
        Mar 21 at 20:38













        I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

        – Paul S. Lee
        Mar 21 at 20:53





        I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

        – Paul S. Lee
        Mar 21 at 20:53













        @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

        – mcalex
        Mar 22 at 6:50






        @Jim you should make that an answer. Negate the middleman and negate the use of the word 'middleman'.

        – mcalex
        Mar 22 at 6:50














        Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

        – ElG
        Mar 26 at 14:13





        Yes, @Jim, I like that even better.

        – ElG
        Mar 26 at 14:13













        Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

        – ElG
        Mar 26 at 14:22





        Gave this some more thought: In sales, companies like to highlight the benefit of cutting out the middleman, so actually I think the OP should keep the word "middleman." Sales copy is a different animal than informational writing. If being concise is the goal, then leave out the "middleman."

        – ElG
        Mar 26 at 14:22











        4














        I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



        I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



        EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






        share|improve this answer



























          4














          I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



          I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



          EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






          share|improve this answer

























            4












            4








            4







            I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



            I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



            EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






            share|improve this answer













            I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



            I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



            EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Mar 21 at 19:24









            Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee

            2894




            2894





















                0














                For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






                share|improve this answer



























                  0














                  For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                  For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                  Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    0












                    0








                    0







                    For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                    For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                    Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






                    share|improve this answer













                    For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                    For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                    Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Mar 21 at 17:35









                    ElliotElliot

                    742




                    742





















                        0














                        If you're looking for a positive expression while still using "need", I'd suggest "relieve":




                        relieve transitive verb



                        1a : to free from a burden : give aid or help to



                        2a : to bring about the removal or alleviation of : mitigate




                        from Merriam Webster




                        our platform relieves the need for a middleman ...







                        share|improve this answer



























                          0














                          If you're looking for a positive expression while still using "need", I'd suggest "relieve":




                          relieve transitive verb



                          1a : to free from a burden : give aid or help to



                          2a : to bring about the removal or alleviation of : mitigate




                          from Merriam Webster




                          our platform relieves the need for a middleman ...







                          share|improve this answer

























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            If you're looking for a positive expression while still using "need", I'd suggest "relieve":




                            relieve transitive verb



                            1a : to free from a burden : give aid or help to



                            2a : to bring about the removal or alleviation of : mitigate




                            from Merriam Webster




                            our platform relieves the need for a middleman ...







                            share|improve this answer













                            If you're looking for a positive expression while still using "need", I'd suggest "relieve":




                            relieve transitive verb



                            1a : to free from a burden : give aid or help to



                            2a : to bring about the removal or alleviation of : mitigate




                            from Merriam Webster




                            our platform relieves the need for a middleman ...








                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 21 at 22:58









                            R.M.R.M.

                            672611




                            672611





















                                0














                                Yes, there is. Consider the expression to make something unnecessary. This phrase is very straightforward and hardly requires any explanation as to what it means. So, I'll just use your example to show you how it can be used in a sentence:




                                Our platform makes the need for a middleman unnecessary.




                                In my opinion, the sentence now does sound a great deal softer than your original version with negates.






                                share|improve this answer

























                                • I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

                                  – Mick O'Hea
                                  Mar 22 at 15:37












                                • That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

                                  – Mike R
                                  Mar 22 at 17:35















                                0














                                Yes, there is. Consider the expression to make something unnecessary. This phrase is very straightforward and hardly requires any explanation as to what it means. So, I'll just use your example to show you how it can be used in a sentence:




                                Our platform makes the need for a middleman unnecessary.




                                In my opinion, the sentence now does sound a great deal softer than your original version with negates.






                                share|improve this answer

























                                • I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

                                  – Mick O'Hea
                                  Mar 22 at 15:37












                                • That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

                                  – Mike R
                                  Mar 22 at 17:35













                                0












                                0








                                0







                                Yes, there is. Consider the expression to make something unnecessary. This phrase is very straightforward and hardly requires any explanation as to what it means. So, I'll just use your example to show you how it can be used in a sentence:




                                Our platform makes the need for a middleman unnecessary.




                                In my opinion, the sentence now does sound a great deal softer than your original version with negates.






                                share|improve this answer















                                Yes, there is. Consider the expression to make something unnecessary. This phrase is very straightforward and hardly requires any explanation as to what it means. So, I'll just use your example to show you how it can be used in a sentence:




                                Our platform makes the need for a middleman unnecessary.




                                In my opinion, the sentence now does sound a great deal softer than your original version with negates.







                                share|improve this answer














                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer








                                edited Mar 22 at 7:24

























                                answered Mar 22 at 7:09









                                Mike RMike R

                                4,99821843




                                4,99821843












                                • I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

                                  – Mick O'Hea
                                  Mar 22 at 15:37












                                • That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

                                  – Mike R
                                  Mar 22 at 17:35

















                                • I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

                                  – Mick O'Hea
                                  Mar 22 at 15:37












                                • That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

                                  – Mike R
                                  Mar 22 at 17:35
















                                I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

                                – Mick O'Hea
                                Mar 22 at 15:37






                                I think in that example "the need for" is superfluous? Just "makes a middleman unneccessary" works better

                                – Mick O'Hea
                                Mar 22 at 15:37














                                That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

                                – Mike R
                                Mar 22 at 17:35





                                That's a good point. Thank you for you comment.

                                – Mike R
                                Mar 22 at 17:35

















                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490767%2fis-there-a-nicer-politer-more-positive-alternative-for-negates%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029