unambiguously, and with defined conditions.” In re Kolb, 366 B.R. 802, 812 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2007). There has been widespread judicial dialogue on the meaning of the term “projected disposable income.” Compare In re Kibbe, 361 B.R. 302, 312 (1st Cir. BAP 2007); In re Lanning, 380 B.R. 17 (10th Cir. BAP 2007); In re Chriss-Price, 376 B.R. 648, 651-52 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn. 2006) (J. Harrison); In re Hardacre, 338 B.R. 718 (Bankr.N.D.Texas 2006); In re Jass, 340 B.R. 411 (Bankr.D.Utah 2006); (all holding that projected disposable income is different from disposable income) with In re Dalton, 2007 WL 4554024 (Bankr.S.D.Miss., Dec. 19, 2007); In re Musselman, 379 B.R. 583 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.2007); In re Kolb, 366 B.R. 802, 812 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2007); In re Alexander, 344 B.R. 742 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.2006) (<HOLDING>). The court in Musselman asks: While the use of
holding that projected disposable income for abovemedian debtors is disposable income as defined by  1325b holding that a debtors disposable income as calculated under 11 usc  1325b2 is not the same as a debtors projected disposable income but that it can be used as the presumptive projected disposable income holding that projected disposable income for abovemedian income debt or is not fixed by means test calculation that includes expenses that would not actually be incurred under plan such as car payments for car to be surrendered holding that for abovemedian income debtors projected disposable income calculated on form b22c is the starting point but not the ending point in determining debtors correct minimum obligation and both income and expenses must be determined as of date of confirmation holding that projected disposable income for an abovemedian income debtor would not include a deduction for contractual payments on undersecured debt that the debtor would not actually be required to pay because the plan bifurcated the claim or surrendered the collateral