@tradealot (tagged because HC isn't letting me quote and then post):
OK, I just gotta answer this one first by yet another person trying to discredit people they disagree with rather than debating the points.
I can see the meaning that you've attributed there. Unfortunately, it's ignored basic English by reading a few extra words into the sentence, and those few missing words change the meaning completely.
If I said "a pretty girl drew the boy's attention", the object of the sentence is the girl. The attention is on the girl.
If I said "a pretty girl drew the boy's attention to the fridge falling from the sky", the object is the fridge. The attention is on the fridge.
What I said was: "We drew [the ASX's] attention" - we, ISX, the company of which I am part-owner, drew the attention on to us, the object of the sentence.
What you read was: "We drew [the ASX's] attention ON TO ISX".
Do you see the importance of identifying the object of the sentence?
For everyone, because that post got a concerning number upvotes for an English-language forum, the exact sentence was:
"It's only when we drew their attention that they sniffed further".
"We" in that sentence clearly refers to ISX, not OM. I confirm, in writing, that I am a holder. A long holder. I have no links with any shorters, and have no (current or past) association with OM.
And for laughs - I had to go back and spell check that, because I mistyped "English" while lecturing on syntax. That would've been embarrassing
