M. Some items have no being.Instead he tells us that he rejects (M) on the grounds that he holds that everything exists. This, surely, is to conflate the somewhat weaselly term 'item' with 'thing' and 'has being' with 'exists'. This is not a million miles from PVI's position, which finds (M) to be contradictory, hence false, or so it seems to me! My own view is that we can make sense of (M) and see that it is true, but we have to draw distinctions between 'item' and 'thing' and between 'has being' and 'exists'. More on this later, if I can get my thinking clear.
The essence of the 'thin theory' is that nothing of interest can be said about 'existence'. I'm afraid that over the ten years or so that I've been following his postings on this topic, Bill has said nothing to persuade me otherwise.