Ch. 05: further tweak to wording about user1 availability

This is a tricky thing to get “just right”, and I am not *totally* happy
with this solution, but I think it’s actually better without the “as a
whole” given the addition of the sentence at the end indicating that its
fields can still be accessed.

Author: chriskrycho

nostarch/chapter05.md

@@ -214,9 +214,10 @@ on page XX. In this example, we can no longer use `user1` after creating
 `user2` because the `String` in the `username` field of `user1` was moved into
 `user2`. If we had given `user2` new `String` values for both `email` and
 `username`, and thus only used the `active` and `sign_in_count` values from
-`user1`, then `user1` would still be valid after creating `user2`. Both
-`active` and `sign_in_count` are types that implement the `Copy` trait, so the
-behavior we discussed in “Stack-Only Data: Copy” on page XX would apply.
+`user1`, then `user1` would still be valid after creating `user2`. Both `active`
+and `sign_in_count` are types that implement the `Copy` trait, so the behavior
+we discussed in “Stack-Only Data: Copy” on page XX would apply. We can also
+still use `user1.email` in this example, since its value was *not* moved out.
 
 ### Using Tuple Structs Without Named Fields to Create Different Types