Interesting he disagrees with Sheehan on the capitalization issue. But I'm either misreading Sheehan's point or I'm misreading Capobianco's point here.
A second reason for abandoning "being" as a name for die Sache selbst is that the current paradigm invariably hypostasizes and inflates it into "Big Being," a metaphysical "Something" (however ethereal) that lies somewhere beyond entities and that we can allegedly "pursue" and "relate to."
It seems hard to me to deny this is a common tendency of readers of Heidegger even if most more sympathetic readings of Heidegger recognize it as a mistake.
I expect Capobianco capitalizes being so his texts are consistent with Richardson's.
I'm sympathetic to both.
I understand Capobianco's point to be, Heidegger's doing ontology, he says he's studying being, so let's not fool ourselves by calling it Ereignis or the clearing.
And Sheehan's: being is an overloaded word. It takes 10 yrs of Aristotle, etc, to understand what Heidegger means by being. It would be less confusing for neophytes if we stopped using being to refer to Heidegger's way of thinking.
My solution: beyng. At least readers would be alerted that something else is being referred to, even if it won't help the man on the omnibus make sense of a overheard conversation been ontologists.