Full Idea
It seems wrong to identify the 'being' of an object, its being what it is, with its existence. In one respect existence is too weak; for there is more to an object than mere existence; also too strong, for an object's nature need not include existence.
Gist of Idea
An object's 'being' isn't existence; there's more to an object than existence, and its nature doesn't include existence
Source
Kit Fine (Ontological Dependence [1995], I)
Book Reference
-: 'Aristotelian Society' [], p.274
A Reaction
The word 'being' has been shockingly woolly, from Parmenides to Heidegger, but if you identify it with a thing's 'nature' that strikes me as much clearer (even if a little misty).