Meinong"s principles of independence and indifference purport to tell us that objects have properties or natures independently of their being and that being is not a part of the nature of any object. But these principles by themselves do not tell us a great deal about how he understood the nature of objects, existent or nonexistent. The terminology used by Meinong to explicate these principles, which up to this point I have adopted uncritically, suggests that existent and nonexistent (i.e. beingless) objects have or exemplify properties. But one might wonder whether this talk is a bit loose, and whether Meinong really meant that objects, i.e. at least nonexistent ones, are properties or combinations of properties, instead of things which have or exemplify properties.