I'm a native speaker of British English and believe that "such things as" is less likely to be used in a spoken context. Naturally I would tend to list out a few things such as a,b or c and rarely if ever have I ever said "such things as". I think that is something to be found in formal literature.
However they are both correct and accomplish the same goal it just depends on how technical the author wants to get.
I found this very relevant thread on wordrefrence which gets into the syntactical difference. I hope this helps :)
"Not only" can be moved to the beginning of the clause for emphasis. It is then followed by auxiliary verb+subject. If there is no other auxiliary, "do"is used. "But" can be left out in this case. Examples:
Not only has she been late three times, she has also done no work.
Not only do they need clothing, but they are also short of water.
Your second sentence, as mentioned by Fantasier, is correct.
Best Answer
As FumbleFingers said, "negation is complex". It is especially so when tied up with the evolution of English and with gerunds.
At the time of the King James Bible "Be not" was colloquial: "Be not afraid", for example, where today we'd say "Don't be afraid"; or "If it be not Toby", where today we'd say "If it isn't Toby." Googling "Be not" returns mostly examples of its usage dating from the 16th to the 18th century, together with discussions about English grammar, many of them here on StackExchange!
If, today, it was idiomatic to say "That must be not Toby" then it would also be idiomatic to say "That be not Toby" and "That be Toby". We don't. We say "That is Toby", "That is not Toby" and "That must not be Toby!"
This - on the use of the present subjunctive- might be helpful.