3. marto sends me a message my post was deleted.
4. I message marto whether he's going to delete the originating post.
5. He replies with a suggestion to "flag it appropriately".
I considered your node, which was just abuse, the system itself sends a message if reaped, not me. You replied asking "and you're not going to delete the flamebait parent?". Firstly nodes don't get 'deleted' via this mechanism, simply hidden behind another click, with the moderation reason displayed beforehand. I asked if you have flagged it, at the time you hadn't. Flagging such nodes or just ignoring posts/users you consider to be trolling is a better approach than an abusive response. You've been here a long time, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with this common approach here.
Your perception of "in kind" is certainly not what I would consider "in kind". It looks to me much more directed at the other person.
I don't find jdporters original reply that eloquent, but it certainly is not a direct insult. I consider your post a direct insult.
Your consideration of the post did not contain an action (edit or delete). I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.
I think a better way forward would be for jdporter to edit his post and direct it towards a more constructive critique of your original post. For example, I could see that suggesting to introduce an unapproved machine into a network is not really sound advice to somebody who wants to keep being gainfully employed.