I don't think this is an example of Russel's teapot. In Russel's teapot, you are giving a solid explanation of what you are claiming, it just happens to be unfalsifiable.

In the example I was criticizing, the word "God" was used without any further explanation of its meaning (in a thread which hosts discussions on different definitions of the word "God" no less).

Of course, if you are a priori assuming that any definition of God is going to be unfalsifiable, you can draw the connection to Russel's teapot, but again, I don't think you can convincingly do this without knowing all the definitions.