I'm going back and forth, Harold, as to whether you wrote with tongue in cheek or with new found (and frustrated) curiosity.

All of this requires defining terms -- and ultimately, that's moving soil for most of us. Yes, we use the same terms ("techology" or "pedagogy" for ex) but rarely do we mean precisely the same thing from a personal bias point of view.

IF "technology" in the classic tense means a "tool" which provides a way to engage the world "outside" of our independent selves, and "pedagogy" suggests a formal/informal way of framing learning as the 'teacher', one should argue that BOTH are equals. As far as the learner is concerned, technology is merely a form of pedagogy; likewise, pedagogy a form of technology.

It'd be quite different if we were arguing the chicken-n-the-egg ratio if it was tech-vs-learning or pedagogy-vs-learning, but we're not, so I'll just allow the Vegas odds makers call it a push.

On the other hand, I'll call on Winston Churchill who offers about architecture (the school design side of my soul, which lies in the "technology" side of things that Harold laid about above):

"First we shape our buildings; then our buildings shape us."

Perhaps we can nod at this point and then realize that as the future and social networking tools (as they currently stand in their early days) are concerned, it should be further argued the that the tools/pedagogy are morphing more and more into an intuitive learner-driven issue which makes the "pedagogy" less and more important all at one times. But the "pedagogy" becomes centered in the learner rather than the teacher, and thus the ultimate issue becomes whether the "learner" or "pedagogy/technology" is of greater importance in the years to come.

And I think we'd have a much more intriguing debate altogether.

Great prompt, Harold!