That sounds, to me, like it could be transference; trying to make someone understand something despite their usually not sounds like what can happen when we're kids. We keep trying to get it "right" even though that opportunity has passed/ain't going to happen.

Reminds me of another post, I think in the communications forum, where someone was asking for explanation of the example their husband had given, where he said he felt like a monkey with his hand stuck in a jar of candy, unable to get his hand out, unable to help himself move on. With the monkey story, I can think of at least two ways the monkey could get the candy; get his hand out, pick up the jar and dump out the candy or, smash the jar.

Emailing that T and wanting her to understand could show attachment, you're "hooked" :-) but connection can only happen when you can see what is going on, when you stop and think, "gee, this looks like transference (or, whatever)" and raise that issue rather than just wanting to get the other to understand, whatever you originally emailed (i.e., you email "I feel like ****" and want to make the other understand what that feels like but, in the middle, realize that wanting to make that particular person understand (not just "people") means something is going on between you and that particular person and, instead of caring about the feeling like ****, you explore WITH the other person, the something going on between you and them. That's connection. When you do that most of the time in therapy, that's a working relationship.