a case supporting the stated proposition which is distinguishable from previously-cited cases. It is sometimes used to refer readers to authorities supporting a proposition when other supporting authorities have already been cited or discussed. A parenthetical explanation of the source's relevance, after a citation introduced by "see also", is encouraged. For example, " ... Omitting the same mental element in a similar weapons possession statute, such as RCW 9.41.040, strongly indicates that the omission was purposeful and that strict liability was intended. See generally State v. Alvarez, 74 Wash. App. 250, 260, 872 P.2d 1123 (1994) (omission of "course of conduct" language in criminal counterpart to civil antiharassment act indicated "Legislature consciously chose to criminalize a single act rather than a course of conduct.") aff'd, 128 Wash.2d 1, 904 P.2d 754 (1995); see also State v. Roberts, 117 Wash.2d 576, 586, 817 P.2d 855 (1991) (use of certain statutory language in one instance, and different language in another, evinces different legislative intent) (citing cases)." Source: State v. Anderson, 141 Wash.2d 357, 5 P.3d 1247, 1253 (2000). Cf. From the Latin confer ("compare"), this signals that a cited proposition differs from the main proposition but is sufficiently analogous to lend support. An explanatory parenthetical note is recommended to clarify the citation's relevance. For example, it is precisely this kind of conjecture and hair-splitting that the Supreme Court wanted to avoid when it fashioned the bright-line rule in Miranda. Cf. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461 (noting that where the suspect asks for counsel, the benefit of the bright-line rule is the "clarity and ease of application" that "can be applied by officers in the real world without unduly hampering the gathering of information" by forcing them "to make difficult judgment calls" with a "threat of suppression if they guess wrong"). Signal indicating background material See generally This signal indicates that the cited authority presents background material relevant to the proposition. Legal scholars generally encourage the use of parenthetical explanations of the source material's relevance following each authority using "see generally", and this signal can be used with primary and secondary sources. For example, it is a form of "discrimination" because the complainant is being subjected to differential treatment. See generally Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581, 614, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540, 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (finding that the "normal definition of discrimination" is "differential