Talk:Shadow Walk/@comment-16533050-20180602070529/@comment-26199726-20180602074207

Of course it isn't useful in that particular sense, but just rat swarms ignoring her simply isn't true, and I venture the current phrasing is more concise than "Bloodflies and rats ignore Emily in shadow from, which in the case of a swarm is useful for ..."

I honestly don't get how the current version could be misunderstood or how it's supposed to not make sense; anyone will get the meaning, and making it more clinically precise is therefore unnecessary and - as argued already - clunky.

And if you follow the strict distinction between animals (meaning individual specimens as well) and swarms through, the wording "bloodflies" in the same sentence ought to be changed as well, as individual bloodflies aren't aggressive either.

Maybe I should add that the sentence still makes perfect sense - after all, it doesn't state that both individual rats' and rat swarms' ignoring Emily is useful, rather that rats in general ignoring her is useful because that means rat swarms ignore her (among other appearances of rats, which aren't necessarily included in the conclusion as well).

But if you still feel the current phrasing is inadequate, feel free to change it and I will refrain from further meddling.