Not an "admonishment" at all. *

See the last sentence of this reply.

One of primary benefits of the Internet is the ability to look up information which may have been posted in the past rather than relying on the (sometimes shaky) memories of the people posting this time around.

This sentence states personal opinions and mixes dissimilar points:

-A capability of the internet being one's ability to attempt
independent research is a fact.

-Whether or not this internet capability is a "primary benefit" is
personal opinion.

-Intimating that someone should perform their own independent research
rather than asking a question of a web-based forum is an opinion
wholly dissimilar to qualifying the capability of internet technology.

-Intimating that someone must perform their own independent research
as a prerequisite to asking a question of a web-based forum is an
opinion wholly dissimilar to qualifying the capability of internet
technology.

Regardless, it's a fact that one is wise to consider any information
acquired via the internet as suspect, whether obtained first-hand or
second-hand .

My opinion: In this case the responder, since he knew the answer,
should have simply supplied the URL for the benefit of all interested
parties, present and future, and 1. Skipped any commentary that could
be misconstued as admonishment for asking the question, and 2. Not
required an intermediary step of the inquirer to make contact via
email in order to receive the answer.

Whether or not this commentary is construed as admonishment is open to
personal interpretation--after all, you say "Po-tay-to" and I say "Po-
tah-to".