It's such a frequently asked question that, come to think of it, it belongs in the FAQ!
The answer is (1) yes, there probably are lots of other comments breaking the guidelines much worse than yours were, and (2) no, the reason I responded to you-but-not-them is nothing personal to you (such as your having recently said something about HN). It's simply that I didn't see those other posts! and we can't moderate what we don't see.
We don't even see 10% of what gets posted to HN; there's far too much. For that reason, it's impossible for moderation to be consistent in the sense of giving every post more-or-less the same treatment. We can only do that on the subset of posts which we do see—and there we do try to be more-or-less consistent—but since readers have no idea what that subset actually is, it ends up seeming super inconsistent and even unfair.
Also, we read the site in all kinds of random-access ways, so even when other comments-that-deserve-to-be-moderated are proximate, we don't necessarily know about them. From a reader's point of view that's even worse: how can you moderate X, but pass over Y doing far worse right on the same page?
It leads to feelings of being singled out personally, or of the moderators taking sides and favoring the comments they happen to agree with. That's why your question commonly arises: it's baked into the fundamentals. Unfortunately it's not so clear what to do about them; that's one consequence of their being fundamental.